Durex has decided to focus on a market that is mostly ignored by other condom manufacturers and advertise directly to models living in some kind of post-modern sexscape. I don’t have a problem with Durex marketing their condoms to models as I’m certain that attractive people with attractive genitals have more sex than say below-average looking humor bloggers with below-average looking genitals.
What I find amusing is that Durex creates ads that look like they belong in magazines with titles like “Chrome Runway” and “French Ottoman” and then places these ads in magazines like “Rolling Stone,” which people like me read between video game sessions.
Durex has about ten of these “that’s my pleasure” ads, but I’m going to focus on one I extracted from a recent “Rolling Stone” magazine.
Durex thinks Rolling Stone readers regularly have back-to-back sex sessions with girls at Fashion Week
If Durex wants people who don’t have a portion of their sex on movie sets to believe this ad, they need to better ground it in reality.
Landscape
First of all, is she lying on a carpet? I mean, I can understand sex on a carpet happening once if your bed is covered in comic books and you’ve whined enough to convince your girlfriend that you can be even quicker than usual so she doesn’t miss any of “More to Love,” but what kind of sadist has sex twice on a carpet? Her back would look like Johnny from The Outsiders after he fumbled his dismount from the burning house.
Or maybe that isn’t carpet but some strange new type of mattress that only models sleep on. If that’s the case, Mattress Giant will have to change their jingle.
“For that Ooohh-ahh bed is only at Mattress Giant
Ooooohhhh-Ahhhhhhhhhhh
Ooooohhhh-Ahhhh AHHHHHH AHHHHHHH MY FUCKING SKIN”
Setup
What is she wearing? Because, from here, it looks like she’s wearing clothing. And I can’t think of something that kills a condom ad quicker than showing a girl in fabric. “Wait, the condoms only work if she’s not naked? FUCK THAT.”
Also, she’s too attractive. It’s easy to see this ad and fantasize that maybe, someday, a girl that looks close to that will ask you for directions to 36th street or something and then touch your arm when she thanks you. It’s harder to see this ad and fantasize that maybe, someday, with copious amounts of alcohol and banned second edition Dungeons & Dragons spells, you’ll be able to have sex with an equally attractive girl. It’s almost impossible to see this ad and fantasize that the girl will then want to “go again.” That’s what Langston Hughes calls a dream deferred.
The Copy
“Getting that ‘let’s-go-again’ look” is not effective ad-copy for the general population. And it’s definitely not effective ad-copy for the average “Rolling Stone” reader.
Let’s try some different copy that’s focused on the “Rolling Stone” audience.
This one would sell a lot of condoms
or
This one would sell a lot of condoms and mace. A Durex condom dispenser that also sprays mace isn't such a bad idea.
or
Nintendo might want to get a piece of this one.
Conclusion
The more I look at these “That’s my pleasure” ads, the more I can’t tell if Durex is trying to sell models, designer undergarments, interior design ideas, or condoms. I think the point is that the product ( it’s down there at the bottom left corner, parts of it barely readable) is getting lost in the advertising. I think that condoms you can barely feel advertise themselves, but what do I know?
Wait, condoms that I can't even feel?!?! THAT'S MY PLEASURE, BABY
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
ok i know this is old but rape jokes are not ok IMO. and i’m talking about both the middle parody ad and the “with copious amounts of alcohol and banned second edition Dungeons & Dragons spells” part.
These ads are clever and fine. You’re being way too nit-picky about the attractiveness of the models and the fact that she’s wearing a camisole and lying on carpet. Of course she’s attractive, she’s a professional model, and the truth is that if the ads used average/non-modelesque women, the condoms wouldn’t sell as well. Any guy looking at this ad knows that he won’t *really* end up with a girl who looks like that, or at least almost definitely won’t, but that’s part of the fantasy of the ad. And why is it such a big deal that she’s wearing a camisole? Maybe she kept it on during sex, maybe she put it on after. Who cares. It’s not distracting in the least. Lastly, the fake ad you’ve created, with the copy “Please, let me go. I won’t tell anyone. I barely saw your face.” is NOT clever or funny. It’s triggering and disgusting and makes light of such a serious issue as rape. In my opinion, THAT ad is one million times more offense and problematic than any of the points you listed in your article about the real Durex ads.