War of the Sexy Stupids: Station Conversation

In the second season premiere of Mad Men, ad exec Don Draper slammed the idea that advertising can be boiled down to “sex sells,” saying, “The people who talk that way think that monkeys can do this.” Well, there are a lot of monkeys working in viral video these days, and this week two ads made a sexy splash. Allegedly, that is. In today’s Station Conversation, Jill Weinberger and Liz Shannon Miller debate which idea is the least appealing: a girl licking a toilet seat, or yet another nipple.

Jill: Okay. So this week, we have two very different commercials — the censored Eva Mendes Calvin Klein commercial and the viral Extended Stay hotels licking commercial — that are both trying mighty darn hard to be sexy and controversial. The question is, is either one remotely successful, or are they both trying TOO hard? And if we’re really going to get our snark on, which one fails more spectacularly?

Liz: Judging them each on a basis of pure stupidity, I have to say the Extended Stay ad wins.

Jill: I dunno. At least the Extended Stay ad, in theory, has a point — namely that their rooms are so clean you can lick them. (Ick.) But the Calvin Klein ad is like, “We don’t need a point. We’ve got Eve Mendes’ nipples.”

Liz: But Eva Mendes’ nipples are at least recognizably sexy, whereas the Extended Stay ad is just gross.

Jill: Well, that blonde girl is pretty good at licking. I’m sure she’s sexy to somebody.

Liz: But to whom? Who is seriously turned on by watching a girl lick a toilet seat? This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to 2 Girls 1 Cup.

Jill: Well, the Calvin Klein ad has a targeting problem, too. It’s clearly for men, which plays into a whole sexist issue I have a problem with, that being the targeting of female products to men under the assumption that men are buying women these things — as opposed to women buying things themselves. ‘Cause no woman is going to buy a product because the ad has Eva Mendes naked in it.

Liz: Yeah, if it’s for women, then “This perfume will help me take my shirt off and show my nipples” is hardly an incentive. (Especially when two vodka tonics is far more economical a solution.)

Jill: And any man who buys a perfume because Eva Mendes’ nipples are in the ad deserves whatever letdown he gets. Use your head, people.

Liz: Yeah, what does the gentleman in question say when giving this perfume as a gift? “Eva Mendes’ nipples reminded me of you?”

Jill: Well, this is what I’m saying. He’s not going to get Eva Mendes, and if his girlfriend doesn’t resemble her to begin with, the perfume won’t help. Plus, it’s probably not going to make said girlfriend writhe around the bed with her nipples flashing. Unless she drinks it. Which would be bad. So all paths pretty much lead to disappointment on the male end.

But sexiness aside, getting back to the Extended Stay thing for a moment. Yes, licking a toilet is clearly sexy to a very limited set of people. However…after the initial “ACK” moment, didn’t you at least briefly think, “Wow, that toilet really is clean”?

Liz: Just because a person licks something doesn’t make it clean. I learned that lesson the hard way.

Jill: But that is one spotless-looking toilet. My first thought was actually that it was a brand new stunt toilet.

Liz: It’s true. But still, imagine pitching this idea to the actress. “No, don’t worry, it’s clean.”

“How clean?”

“Oh, really clean. We used Lysol.”

“But that’s going to taste gross.”

“No, it’s the tasty kind of Lysol.”

Jill: The new mango lime flavor.

I don’t know, that actress seemed reeeeaaaallly committed to that process. I somehow don’t feel she needed a lot of persuasion. No judgments, mind you. She’s just awfully good at selling what she’s doing.

Liz: Maybe she’d been drinking Calvin Klein perfume.

And the thing that doesn’t bug me about the Calvin Klein ad is that it’s very much in line with traditional perfume ads. Just with a scosch more nip. I can understand its origins and motivations. I cannot understand toilet-licking.

Jill: That’s why I think it’s uber-dumb. They did nothing new or controversial at all. They just threw in some nipples so that they could get press coverage. It is so blatant.

I mean, I find it difficult to argue in favor of the Extended Stay ad, because it is gross beyond comprehension, but at least they tried to have a new idea. A new idea that skeeves me the hell out, but it was an attempt do actually have a CONCEPT, for weeping out loud.

Liz: So what we have here is a war of the sexy stupids, which essentially boils down to originality vs. tradition.

Jill: I will have to come down in favor of new gross-me-out-twitchy stupid over old worn-out-trope-with-new-nipples stupid. Though it is a tough call and I would honestly like to kick the people behind both concepts right in the shins.

Liz: While I, in turn, will have to pledge my strict allegiance to fighting the licking of foreign objects. WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

Jill: The children shouldn’t be flashing their nipples in CK ads either. But you make a fair point, which is that the Extended Stay ad has far greater potential for spawning new viral gross-outs. The CK ad is just another perfume ad. People were flashing nip when Eva Mendes was just a zygote. She ain’t spawning nothing.

Liz: Fortunately, I think the licking fad will probably pass. Though I’ll be on watch. Forever vigilant. Deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline.

Jill: Well, if you want to take on the task of watching all the subsequent toilet-licking videos, be my guest. And now I have to go kiss the picture of Aaron Sorkin I keep on my wall.

Liz: Don’t lick it. I know it’s tempting. But don’t lick it.

Jill: I hardly ever use tongue with pictures. It makes ‘em warp.

Liz: Well, good. That’s one down, the rest of the Internet to go.