Tiffany & Co - new engagement ring ads - Thoughts

We all love Tiffany & Co. We not only love it because of Breakfast at Tiffany's or the statement blue box but because the jewellery is actually great. Tiffany & Co has something for everyone - if you don't have enough money to buy the gold Paloma Picasso necklace, you can get hooked by buying a keyring. Buy something cheap now so you feel like you are 'in' and then come back when you have the money - marketing genius really. 

Anyhow, this particular post is about the new ad for Tiffany engagement rings. It is perfect. So sweet. So sweet that it in fact looks too perfect and too sweet. In effect, there is nothing wrong with this ad - a perfect New Yorker couple (NB I appreciated the attempt not to pick Barbie & Ken so as to make it more 'real'), getting married in Central Park with the closest family and friends.

Firstly the concept. We all know that Tiffany is a quintessential New York brand. It has been in a hella lotta movies, Breakfast at Tiffany's and Sex And The City being the obvious ones. We already know that Park Avenue, 5th Avenue and Tiffany's is the holly trinity of the Upper East Side. We have been told the same thing since 1837. It's tradition, it's values, it's solid. Don't think it's time to tell us something we don't already know??? I mean, is it just me who is not appreciating the cheesiness of this ad? I mean, the yellow cab? Since when do brides get into yellow cabs? And why are people throwing confetti at them when they are coming out from under an arch in Central Park? And why is it that all guests are male in the third picture? 

I'm pretty sure that Tiffany already has a strong following amongst the Park Avenue ladies. It seems strange that they wouldn't want to modernise it a little and tap into a slightly different market. That is all.

Karen Millen - SS2011 Campaign - Rave

Karen Millen has really impressed me with their campaign this season. For a high street brand they have managed to come up with a classy, well-styled ad and well-cast ad campaign.

Firstly, lets talk about the model. Jess Hart - a smart choice for a number of reasons. She is an established face who got some great exposure through her cameos in The City… which, if you think about it, would be the program watched by the brand's target market. At the same time she is not too big so she is not immediately associated with any of the bigger fashion brands. And finally, Jess' look is very much a 'top-end model' look so it doesn't make the campaign look tacky or cheap but rather takes into a more high-fashion territory. Jess has done a great job on this one.

Secondly, the campaign is well styled. Bursting with colour but keeping the minimalist and clean lines it is simple yet eye-catching. I love how the bright background is used to accentuate the clothes.

Finally, this campaign is successful because it has focused Karen Millen's strongest points. I say this because looking at the campaign you get a story of a sophisticated high street brand which is affordable yet has an edge and is not as huge as the likes of Topshop or H&M. In reality, at least for me, Karen Millen is a bit of a hit'n'miss brand. Every time I walk into the store I find a small number of items that I love and a slightly higher number of items that make me cringe because of their tackiness. It's like some of the clothes should have a disclaimer attached: "best worn with fake tan and excessive jewellery". Like the much loathed layer-cake dress in Barbie pink from last season's collection.

In any case, I very much think that the brand is moving in the right direction and although the SS2011 collection (I mean the clothes here rather than the campaign) for me is an obvious amalgamated version of LV Resort 2011 and Prada SS2011, I do not think it should take away from the great job that Karen Millen has done this season. The brand should be proud, as their campaign is of a high standard and looks on par even with the heavyweights of the industry when it appears on the pages of glossies.

Karen Millen SS2011:

Louis Vuitton Resort:

Prada SS2011:

Selling sex in a bottle - Perfume ads for SS2011- Thoughts

It always amazes me how so many brands choose to so blatantly use sex to promote their scents. It makes me wonder why. Surely it shouldn't be too hard to sell perfume by putting a pretty face to it?! Why is it that the scent is so often linked to sexuality? It's like the ads are screaming: "use me and you will get sex, lots of it!" or is it more like: "once you use me, all you'd want to do is have sex"?

Anyway, whatever it is that drives the brands to put that spin on it, it must work because they keep doing it season after season. 

What I also find interesting is that the concept is the same but the spin is sooo different! 

Lets consider the following examples:

1. Natalie Portman for Miss Dior

"oh look at me, i'm so innocent and virginal and girlie… but I am nakeeeed" 

Tasteful, feminine and has just the tinge of sexiness so as to not make it vulgar. I like it. 

2. Scarlett Johansson for D&G The One

"I am irresistibly sexy and you couldn't say 'no' even if you really wanted to. Sorry, I guess I was just born that way…"  

Amp up the volume from our first example to end up balancing on the edge of sultry and blatant sex. Still the ad is not at all vulgar but it is very much a statement. Everything makes a not-so-subtle hint on sex - the eyes, the open mouth, the red lipstick, the bustier that she is wearing. Poor Scarlett is just sitting there waiting for someone to come sweep her of her feet, carry her to the bed and make sweet love.

3. Gucci Guilty 

A bold, sweaty statement. "Good looking people use this scent and have amazing sex - you too could be good looking and have amazing sex if you use this scent. Come what are you waiting for?!"

Yet again, take it up a notch from our Scarlett example by introducing a second variable to the equation - a good looking Italian man. Mais biensur! This is a bold, shameless, slightly voyeuristic ad which works because the brand in question is Gucci. Gucci has always been a sensual Italian brand so in this case it almost makes sense. I mean why wouldn't you if you can?

4. Megan Fox for Armani Code

Apart from my personal dislike of Megan's look, this ad is for those of who are a bit thick and don't get hints and subtleties. Just put it out there - "we just had sex and it felt sooo good" (they really should've used The Lonely Island song as a soundtrack - if you don't know what I am talking about YouTube "The Lonely Island" it really is hilarious). This ad I would definitely classify as vulgar in my books. I'm not entirely sure what makes it vulgar but I guess it's a bit of everything - the overly sexual look on Megan's face, the fringe that doesn't suit her one bit, her tattoos, the naked man in the background. I think Megan is great for selling things to men - she is a sexbomb and it's a fact. But when it comes to selling to women the previous Armani Code ad was, in my humble opinion, much more tasteful and effective.  

Old Flame - Lilly Allen for Chanel - RANT

This ad is no longer relevant because it is from yonks years ago but it is an old flame for me - it just always really bothered me. It's not even that I mind Lilly Allen so much, it is Lilly Allen in combination with Chanel that had ticked me off. Lilly Allen is/was a pop star, a very successful one at that but a pop star nonetheless. Chanel is an icon, a mecca, the holy grail of fashion. I know uncle Karl said that he picked Lilly because she is a self-made woman but there is so much more to it than that. For me personally, this was a disappointment in Chanel more than anything. Chanel stands for elegance, heritage, femininity, status. Lilly Allen, as nice as she is, stands for none of those things (or at least she didnt until her magical Chanel makeover). It just did not make sense to me. Lilly is a jolly english girl who likes a drink and a laugh and doesnt take herself too seriously. As great as that is - that is not enough for Chanel. No matter how drastic the makeover, she is still Lilly Allen - a brand name in her own right, but a brand name that represents nothing of what Chanel is all about. Sorry Lilly! Not happy, uncle Karl! 

Follow my blog with bloglovin

NY Times Style Magazine cover - Rave

I think this cover is amazing. Such a powerful look in her eyes and that match just ads to the dare. Minimum make-up, simple hair and the bra strap showing - together create an air of understated sex appeal. And yet, there is depth in her eyes... Makes you want to find out her thoughts. 

Tatler UK, February cover - Rant

I'm lost for words. Why pick an image that makes Kate look like she is in her 40's? Dreadful. 

Blake Lively for Chanel

This particular Chanel ad I do not really have a problem with. I love Blake Lively, she is sexy and gorgeous and all that. One tiny little thing that kinda freaks me out here is her eye though. I'm talking about not the eyes that stare at you from the reflection in the mirror but the other eye. I dont know whether it's the retouching or just an accident but it looks glassy and zombie-like. It is spooky. That is all.

Van Cleef & Arpels advertisement

This is also a long time un-favorite. I mean, lets think about this... Van Cleef & Arpels, a fine jewellery luxury brand. Probably competing for the market share along Cartier and Tiffany & Co. And yet every single time I see this ad, it just makes me think of either some kind of detergent or air freshener. I think it must be the blue skies and the green grass that automatically makes me think of fresh air, endless pastures and milky clouds... Hang on a minute.. now that I think about it... May be it's not detergent at all, may be it is Milka chocolate or a yoghurt... hmmm

In any case, fine jewellery is the last thing that comes to mind. There are just so many questions that I have about this ad: why is she blowing bubbles? bubbles - soapy? what's the message here? Also what's with the haircut? That fringe... I don't think it looks anything like the demographic that VC&A are aiming for. She does not look like a sophisticated, well-to-do Park Avenue lady.. She looks like a girl next door, possibly who sells ice-cream for some part-time cash.. There it is again! Dairy, ice-cream, cows... I just can't get away from it! Anyhow, it would be interesting to find out how successful this campaign was because to me it makes no sense whatsoever! 

Elle UK February cover - Keira Knightley

This cover bugged me the minute I saw it. I think I even tweeted @ Elle about it. It's the eye. Look at her eye. It is not completely and fully open and hence the flick of the eyelashes is not complete and hence she looks either stoned or half asleep. This shot could've been good for an editorial page but not a cover!!! I mean come on people...