Just when you think you’ve seen everything in marketing, something comes along that leaves you with your jaw hanging open. Sometimes it’s a ‘wow, why didn’t I think of that?’ jaw drop. And sometimes it’s crap like this.
Source: Fluid Hair Facebook page
This is real campaign from Fluid Hair in Edmonton, previously named one of the best salons in the city by SEE Magazine. I guess their stylists must have a better sense of decorum than their ad agency! What you see above is an image from Fluid’s Facebook page of one of their ad campaigns, featuring the slogan “Look good in all you do”. You are not seeing things, that is indeed a woman with a black eye about to receive a make-good gift from a man who is presumably her abuser.
I don’t usually use this blog to take bad advertising to task, but this is so far beyond the pale I felt I had to. Because if we are all quiet when something like this happens, it continues to happen. My hands are actually shaking as I type this. The famously sexist 1950s ad agencies would stop short of this.
I imagine that whoever did these ads told Fluid Hair it was ‘edgy’ and ‘exciting’. Some of the photo set is pretty cool; there are women with great hair working in the trades, serving tea, revving motorcycles…you get the idea. And then there are a couple where the concept completely went off the rails. Aside from the ‘sofa’ scene, there’s a homeless girl (because what’s NOT sexy about living on an abandoned mattress in an alley?) and a woman unloading a corpse from a hearse into a forest (because murder! lol!)
Here are the images I’m referencing, for your perusal. I’ve taken the liberty of using screenshots from the original source because I suspect this is going to disappear by tomorrow.
Source: Fluid Hair Facebook page
Source: Fluid Hair Facebook page
Some people would have you believe that all press is good press. As a marketer (and as a human being with feelings), I can tell you this is not true. This kind of thing might get you a lot of attention, but it will also undoubtedly hurt your brand. This is how boycotts start. Even setting aside the complete tastelessness of this campaign, it’s a huge marketing mistake.
If you feel the same way, I urge you to reach out to Fluid Hair on their Facebook page and tell them you’re not onboard with co-opting others’ pain and suffering to try to sell services.
UPDATE: According to Fluid Hair we’re all just oversensitive and don’t appreciate ‘art’. Well, good thing we got that cleared up! So I guess Fluid needs a new agency and a new PR person. (Hint: The appropriate thing to do is apologize profusely.)
UPDATE 2: #boycottFluidHair seems to be the hashtag of the pro-boycott crowd, if you want in on that.
UPDATE 3: Fluid Hair has taken the murder and domestic violence photos down from their Facebook page (Oops! They are still up. My error, sorry! Two of the questionable ads are absent from their website, though.). Since the Facebook edit may still come, you can view all three on my server here: murder, domestic violence, homeless.
UPDATE 4: I just noticed that the corpse legs coming out of the hearse/murder photo are the homeless girl’s! While I suspect that’s just reusing a model (I hope), it does add a new level of WTF.
UPDATE 5: This just never stops. Elsewhere on Fluid Hair’s Facebook page, a photo of the battered woman look getting created. The caption: hottest battered woman I’ve ever laid my eyes upon. Screenshot:
UPDATE 6: General consensus in the comments is that the shoot concept and the models are all from the salon itself. Please note that without a statement from the salon I can’t 100% confirm, but it does look likely. See update #7! Actually this whole debacle is a great reason to make sure you have a reputable ad agency.
Update to Update #6 – Cameron (salon owner) was quoted on CTV saying “Everybody’s getting on me about, ‘well how would you feel if you knew someone who was in domestic violence?’ The producer of this shoot, the one who styled it all, she grew up in it.” Which suggests there was in fact some manner of outside influence on this ad. Regardless, the salon remains at fault for approving the images/concept.
UPDATE 7: Ryan Jesperson from Breakfast TV has confirmed Sarah Cameron and publicist Tiffany Jackson are behind the ad, no outside ad agency is involved.
In other news, Fluid has finally released an official response on their Facebook page. Among other things, it notes that they “respect everyone’s interpretation of what they perceive the message to be”, suggests the media should pay attention to other more important issues and reminds us we’re all dumb to be offended and why aren’t we doing anything for domestic violence charities? You know, just like they….oh wait, they didn’t do anything for domestic violence until this ad blew up. They now promise anyone that mentioning the ad will make your service fee go to the Edmonton Women’s Shelter. I’m sure they’re thrilled to be associated with this garbage.
UPDATE 8: Tiffany Jackson, the publicist behind the shoot has posted a reaction from her mother on Fluid’s Facebook page. I am assuming she agrees with it, since she posted it. It alleges that by ruining the salon’s business we are all committing a crime not unlike domestic violence. As usual, screencapped for posterity.
UPDATE 9: And we have the Tiffany Jackson letter @FluidHair_Sarah posted earlier today. Many people have been blocked from this by Facebook (don’t know why, as Sarah Cameron seems to have intended to make it public?)
Tiffany herself is a survivor of domestic violence, which she talks about in the letter. She seems to think that the objection is to the artistic portrayal of the woman, while I would argue it’s that they’re using that image to sell hair services with the slogan “Look good in all you do.” I haven’t seen anyone argue that we shouldn’t have seen this image. It is indeed a shocking one, and it does make you think. It’s the link to co-opting pain and suffering of millions to serve a business that has people angry.
Before you read Tiffany’s letter, I would be remiss to miss the chance to link to this fabulous open letter from Lily Tsui of the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton.
Here is a screenshot of Tiffany Jackson’s letter from my email. Source is protected but reputable. Posting full size would break my blog, so you’ll have to click the image to view it in its entirety.
UPDATE 10: Here’s a screenshot of Sarah Cameron’s latest note on the Fluid Hair Facebook page. The highlight is “It seems as though the subject matter and photo series itself is accepted by people if it wasn’t an ad.” YES THAT IS EXACTLY IT.
UPDATE 11: I never expected this much traffic to this post. I even had to upgrade my hosting package to accommodate everyone. So I’ve decided to put that traffic to use. I’ve started a fundraising page for domestic violence on GoFundMe. I’m asking everyone who views this and is angry about it to donate the price of your next haircut to The Bad Ad Fund, and Yes That Jill (that’s me, folks) will split the money between the YWCA Edmonton and WIN House.
WIN House (Edmonton Women’s Shelter) operates two shelters in the city for women fleeing domestic violence. YWCA works all to end domestic violence, and promote leadership and economic security for women and girls.
Don’t let this ad get you down, instead lift others up – if you can’t afford a haircut’s worth, a couple bucks will do! Let’s make it rain. Thanks.
Good show Jill! Thanks for really calling Fluid out on this.
Thanks Andrea. I’ve never been more infuriated by advertising before. I advertise my business as “affordable, ethical marketing”, and many times I’ve debated taking the “ethical” out because I thought “Is that self-evident? Do I need to say that?” Apparently I was right to keep it there.
These ad feature the girls that WORK at Fluid. This was not done by any agency. That is why the model is being re-used. This ad is almost guaranteed to have been thought up and executed by the owner. FYI.
It would be a relief if no local ad agency would be involved with this, and we’ve discussed this possibility on Twitter throughout the day. (I think someone mentioned a photog friend of the owner may have shot these photos?)
In any case, I was unable to confirm the source of the images so I didn’t do an update saying the campaign was dreamed up/executed by the owner and employees at Fluid. I agree with you though that it’s likely the case. If a reputable source reports (someone who knows them or a formal news outlet) I will do another update.
The “hottest battered woman” she’s ever seen. Seriously?
I guess I just don’t understand why this is cool or edgy to begin with. To me, this is just offensive. As Paula Simons wrote, it’s a larger issue.
This is not “just some ad”. This is an ad for a beauty parlour that is targeted to WOMEN. Using a battered WOMAN as the selling feature. This is not acceptable, and the fact that the owner is still defending her completely misguided actions speaks volumes.
Yup, that phrase is gagworthy.
I would add that it’s definitely not ‘just some ad’ but it’s also not ‘art’, as the owner would have us believe. Art doesn’t try to sell you something.
Honestly, misfires and completely stupid moves are made in advertising all the time.
I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with this had the owner simply apologized for the mistake, and perhaps made a donation/event to help support battered women in the city.
But the dismissive, privileged, “oh, everyone’s so easily offended these days” rebuttal to the criticism makes me gag. I won’t be supporting this place.
Absolutely. It was terribly offensive and the right thing to do (from both a PR standpoint and a general ethics standpoint) would have been to immediately pull the ad and unreservedly apologize for the lack of good judgment.
Not go on record with the Edmonton Sun calling all the people you offended rubes who don’t understand your ‘art’.
I’m glad this is finally getting media attention. Just to be clear – this is a campaign the owner of the salon and her associates came up with on their own – as are the majority of their campaigns. No need to boycott any ad agency, the salon itself will do.
Thanks for your comment Hailey. I haven’t been able to 100% confirm this is the work of solely the salon and its employees, so I haven’t made an update yet to that effect. Ultimately though, it hardly matters, since the salon would have had final approval over the ads.
While I doubt that any Edmonton ad agency actually produced this, I hope you understand my reluctance to say ‘the models are employees’ and ‘the owner came up with this from concept to execution’ without a good source for that info. If you can help in that department I would be happy to update this story!
They have their own photography studio, know many photographers and the photo in question was shot in the salon. This was a shoot that in their minds was suppose to be amusing and edgy but instead comes off very tacky and in poor taste. If you look at all the other “ads” fluid has produced, they all feature the salon girls. In my opinion, these girls just want an excuse to get dressed up have nice photos shoots of themselves.
In terms of the ad…. This is a prime example of why hairdressers should stick to doing hair (not advertising/marketing).
This is definitely a good example of why people need an advertising/marketing agency to guide them. A reputable agency would never have produced this kind of work and would dissuade the client from pursuing this. And if they had retained a decent PR person when the crisis struck it could have helped them avoid making it worse.
The dark haired girl in the ads is Sarah. The blonde in question in the ad, is the other stylist Melissa Megley. The creepy husband is a friend of theirs.
Post has been updated with the caveat that I personally cannot confirm this information.
Meow, your comment ” In my opinion, these girls just want an excuse to get dressed up have nice photos shoots of themselves.” is likely very true. What girl wouldn’t want to make fun and edgy “art” with their friends?
The rest of the ads in the campaign are indeed gorgeous. The styling, photography, and composition is right down my alley. (Even the racy subject matter (murder, etc) are things I’ve taken part in artistically for horror films and photography etc) . It was the tagline along with the image in question that initially really bothered me…
I think ultimately, the girls never thought that anyone would take it literally, and definitely did not intend to receive this kind of backlash.
Artistically speaking, I wish they had added something a little extra in it, to make the image less one sided. (A knife in her hand, perhaps, and a vengeful look on her face?) Not sure if there would have been much of an uproar in that case.
Yes, this was the point I was trying to make — you just said it much more articulately.
photographer who shot the photos: Neil Mota from Montreal
Just going to throw this out there… Laird Media designs there website and their past campaigns sure do look like these images
http://lairdmedia.com/works/fashion/
Nicely said, everyone. Just a comment on this:
“Artistically speaking, I wish they had added something a little extra in it, to make the image less one sided. (A knife in her hand, perhaps, and a vengeful look on her face?) Not sure if there would have been much of an uproar in that case.”
Actually, that would make the woman into a potential murderer. Not exactly softening the violence, no? I would still be pretty upset.
After an initial knee jerk reaction to this ad, one that included laughter with a touch of dismay at the absurdity and apparent stupidity of putting out such an ad.
Yet after leaving my initial comment I found that I couldn’t stop thinking about this ad. Eight minutes later I realized that this advertisement really is ART and that it is much more truthful than the majority of ads that are poisoning our minds.
You have to know that the city where this salon is located is called Edmonton. It has been the location of an ongoing oil boom which brings people from all over the nation here to seek employment. The amount of money some people make is just ridiculous and the streets are lined with huge trucks while girls with perfect hair sit in the passenger seats. While many people idealize the money and glamour of said riches it is not known that Edmonton is the murder capital of Canada, has an alarming homeless rate and from personal knowledge I know that domestic abuse is off the charts in this blue class booze and cocaine fueled society. We tend to want to paint over the horrors of our society with nice hair and good make up but the sickness is still there under the surface.
So the next time you see an ad that tells you that if you wear such and such make up then you will be happy I hope you realize that it is a lie. No haircut or make up can make you happy, especially when you are the victim of spousal abuse.
This ad might be offensive to you and it should be! That still doesn’t make it art. You have seen it and are disturbed. Maybe that uncomfortable feeling is just what you need to be empathetic to the real people you know that are being abused. Maybe that feeling might help you make the change in your own life.
Like it or not, this ad is art. It has made me think and made me comment and for that reason alone it is a head and shoulders above most of the meaningless and false advertisements out there. Bravo Fluid….you might be stupid for approving this ad, but at least you made something.
But where do you draw the line? Molestation is a serious issue that isn’t in the media and public’s attention everyday. If the ad was the image of an older guy holding a lollypop out to a model dressed like a school girl with edgy pigtails, would you say to yourself “That’s art” because all he’s innocently trying to do is give her candy? The goal should be positive attention to these issues. The points of these ads weren’t to make us more aware, they are to sell the salon’s services. If you don’t see that, all you are is a slave to any stupid and ridiculous marketing campaign that comes along. Yes, it makes you think. But there’s nothing wrong with thinking it’s shit, and being correct.
This might be my favourite comment.
I strongly agre with you comment, it definitely made an impact.
Molestation is an issue that largely involves minors, of course they aren’t going put that in to an ad.
As someone from Edmonton who has moved away, my still frequent trips home are alarming. Good for you for doing your research and really understanding why these women, in this city, chose to go this direction.
It’s awful to see, and would i have chosen to use that image, no. I think the the matress shot comes across more like that WW2 “Rosie the Riverter” campaign and had the peoples backs already not been so up the hearse shot I think comes across a little cheeky, almost funny.
Not the smartest move, but it had an impact and positioning them seves appropriately over the next month or 2 will make or break them.
Its time to donate your services to women at the womens shelter for a day, maybe even make it a monthly thing.
Oops, I should really read over my comments before posting them. Please ignore the half assed sentence at the beginning and the line, “That still doesn’t make it art”. I was trying to say that it still doesn’t make it NOT art…or something to that effect. Please ignore my poor grammar but not my intent that just because you don’t like what it says doesn’t make it powerful and poignant.
As a commercial writer this makes me flinch. As a human being this infuriates me. Speaking as someone who’s escaped an abusive relationship and actively works with women’s shelters, this is a step backward.
They say in the article the producer was a victim then I wonder if (s)he ever actually was in fear for their life. Walking on eggshells to keep from offending the abuser in some unknown way just so you could survive. Having to save every scrap of change to make an escape plan and then hiding it, knowing if it’s found you’ll be in more trouble than ever before.
I’m so incredible disgusted, upset and horrified by this campaign I can’t even begin to explain the emotions coursing through my brain right now.
Does Fluid Hair not realize that Alberta has the highest rate for domestic violence? Both men and women suffer from domestic violence in silence and Fluid hair does their best to glamorize this. Do not forget that children are in some of these home where there is domestic violence and continue the abuse against their partners when they become adults. I would not become a client of a place that promotes violence of any kind and especially domestic violence against any gender.
Blanche. Exactly! We do have the highest abuse rate and that’s what the ad is talking about. Look at the OIL under the sofa. It’s a statement about us hiding our ugliness behind materialism and cosmetics. It may be misunderstood but even in that misunderstanding it is still raising awareness.
Advertising is NOT art. Art doesn’t try to sell you something. If it were really art it wouldn’t be attached to a slogan. (I don’t buy that advertising is a form of art – as a medium it’s less than genuine at best, although it can certainly be beautiful.)
I wouldn’t give the salon that much credit for introspectiveness. I saw the owner on Global earlier and her response was something like Uh, maybe people will think about this and stuff (I am obviously not quoting here.) Suffice to say she didn’t exactly sound like her ‘art’ had layers.
Even if this photo is some sort of high art, the slogan completely trivializes domestic violence. “Look good in all you do.” Come on.
just because you don’t think it’s art doesn’t make it not art. there are plenty of things out there that i don’t consider art, but other people do. does that make their opinion less valid simply because we disagree on the matter?
the easiest example for me to latch on to would be lady gaga at this moment, who, by all rights exists for the sole purpose of selling records. now, nothing that she does, i would consider art, but she has her legions of fans who consider her “an artist” and consider what she does to be “art”. who is right?
or you want to go one step further, i personally don’t consider photography to be art. i recognize that there are artistic aspects about it, but to me, it is simply not art. i know that everyone disagrees with me on this matter, but pushing a button and creating an image that you thought looked pretty, it can be argued (by me, mostly), simply doesn’t have the same amount of creative investment as something you have crafted with your hands.
but even this raises a question: what about the so-called “art” which was crafted by someone’s hands, but for the sole purpose of making money? we have the roof of the sistine chapel, a work of art by any standards which took years to complete, but by for all intents and purposes was created so michaelangelo could pay his rent. does knowing that diminish its purpose as art?
or what about andres serrano’s “piss christ”? as far as i can tell, that has no purpose other than to piss off catholics, but plenty of people consider that to be art? i might not, but my opinion doesn’t diminish its standing within the art world. it is recognized as art and should be treated as such.
so i suppose what i’m saying is, there is so much art in the world, and so many perspectives on what IS and IS NOT art, that there is no one conclusive way to determine objectively how to define art. it is all too subjective.
these ads, for me, where they succeed is that they have instigated a reaction inside people. they have deliberately antagonized you into having an emotional response. so, good or bad, regardless of whether or not you like it, i have to say that these ads have done their job. they have made a lasting impression on you and for that reason alone, they are damningly effective.
If it lacked the logo; if it lacked the overt and direct suggestion that you should be pretty even when he hits you; then it would be art. It could be a commentary on battered women holding their poise, even when they can’t get out, or something similar.
Instead, it’s vicious and says, well, “you should be pretty even when he hits you.”
And the slogan “Look good in all you do” implicitly puts the responsibility on the battered woman. What she is doing is getting beaten; it’s her action, not an action done to her.
(I’ve expressed that part poorly; what I mean is that domestic violence robs its victims of agency.)
Why is AD campaign for Fluid Salon using the image of an abused woman “Look Good in All you Do”? Domestic violence is no joke – many women are trapped in this nightmare with no way out! Fluid Salon should NOT be using this type of offensive AD as a marketing tool to get WOMEN to come to your salon! By the way, this is NOT Art!
Pingback: LINDA-HOANG.COM » Blog Archive » Clicks of the Day: Monday, August 29, 2011 Edition!
Some people are just really out of touch with reality, but I mean come on…to put something like this out as advertising…You have to be a really sick bastard!!!
I’ve been coming back to this ad all day, and really trying to convey the level of disgust I feel. I get that they are trying to be edgy, sexy, controversial, modern, hip, whatever adjectives you want to insert, but it all boils down to disregard. I wanted to use ignorance, but the people responsible cannot be that stupid. The issue has been raised, and they had the chance to apologize while they had their 15 minutes of fame, but instead they tried to defend their pathetic ad campaign. Perhaps they are of the belief that any attention is good for business, maybe they only want to attract a certain type of clientele, but anyone who is really savvy and smart will avoid Fluid Hair like the plague. There’s nothing catchy about seeing a battered woman with bad hair sitting on a sofa while a creepy man looms behind her with a piece of equally creepy bling. Her hair looks like sh*t, the sofa’s pattern sucks and the man looks like a mass murderer or some kind of creepy dude you would see on The X-Files. There’s nothing glamorous about being the victim of abuse or trying to cover it up with make-up, hair and sexy poses. Ms. Cameron had her chance to shine, instead she chose to highlight a shinER and as the young people say today (I’m not that old, but old enough to know this is a disaster)….EPIC FAIL.
This ad left me speechless, but only for a moment. And then I picked up my phone and called Fluid, asking them to phone me back and explain why they thought it was okay to depict something so horrific in their ad. Please do the same, and show Sarah Cameron that this is beyond unacceptable.
I’ve spoken with salon owner Sarah Cameron’s publicist Tiffany Jackson, who confirmed the ads were conceptualized and carried out by both herself (acting as an independent contractor) and Cameron. There were no outside ad agencies involved.
We’ll be discussing this throughout Tuesday’s Breakfast Television. Please feel free to contact us at btedmonton@citytv.com or leave a comment on our facebook page.
Nice work Jill.
rpj.
Thanks Jill, for bringing this to the forefront. I don’t live in Edmonton, otherwise I would definitely boycott the salon. This is truly disgusting!! How can anyone possibly think this would sell haircuts? What might have worked better is depicting women in jobs that are typically considered “man jobs” – like a welder or construction, etc. At least, with those professions, you have something on your head, and the whole point of fixing “bad hair” wouldn’t be missed. I fail to see how the ads in this particular ad makes that point.
This tactic of advertising is absolutely horrifying. Can the owner of Fluid Hair put herself into the shoes of the women across our nation who suffer at the hands of domestic violence on a daily basis and see how she comes out of it. Violence is not something to like lightly, it kills, maims, it breaks families. I do not know your location in Edmonton, if I did, I would absolutely boycott.
Pingback: Why would a salon use domestic violence to promote itself? Part II – A partial answer | Edmonton Journal
Pingback: August 30 Edmonton Headlines – the edmontonian: awesome since 2009
Despite an old adage, sometimes the message hits harder than the medium.
Not only does the photograph undoubtedly portray a woman who has been physically assaulted, the message and the set decor vividly speak to an era not so long ago when the issue of intimate partner violence was viewed as a private matter. In the current climate of social policy reform, advocacy organizations and public education this advertisement is a throwback to a time that so many women and men still work to surpass.
When viewed from a social or historical perspective, the message in the image is clear. Within this frame of reference it is not a image of beauty or art, but rather a message of mockery and insensitivity. Although a single campaign, “Look good in all you do” reminds us that Intimate Partner Violence is a systematic issue that needs to be continually challenged through public engagement.
It’s not that the photograph is unsavory in and of itself, it’s the packaging that has tainted the art and propagated a stereotype.
I think a lot of legitimate dialogue and commentary has arisen from this (via social media sites) and it’s laughable to compare this public reaction to domestic violence.
Those involved in this project are ill-informed, regardless of their purported experience working with abused women. When you post something in a public forum you need to be prepared to justify your actions – I’ve yet to read an explanation with substance.
I am appalled but thank you for documenting everything for posterity and for calling them on a horrendous “campaign.”
Excellent work, Jill. The stupidity of the Fluid for refusing to understand just how appalling the ad is is mind-boggling. Apologize, Fluid.
Also, I forgot to mention that, really, we shouldn’t forget some of the other equally appalling images. The ads seem to work by selling not just domestic abuse but murder (?), and prostitution as sexy. The murder and prostitution/homeless shots’ connection of using the same model seem to add a scary note of glamorizing at best and mocking at worst human trafficking.
So much of this is horrendous.
What gets to me the most right now is how Sarah and Tiffany are now claiming they created the ad to stimulate discussion about domestic violence. If that were true, why only release the ad on their website and facebook? If their true goal was to raise awareness, why didn’t they work to get this ad noticed over a year ago when it was first posted? Why didn’t they partner with an organization supporting victims of domestic violence in the creation of this awareness-raising statement? Oh that’s right, because this latest explanation/excuse is simply their last-ditch effort to mask the real reason they made this ad: to make MONEY.
If these two just stepped up and said they made an error in judgement, I am sure people could forgive. But to lie and claim they are merely acting as agents of social change is sickening.
Thanks for posting on this Jill.
As a woman who has dealt with physical, emotional, mental and sexual abuse, I am appalled that anyone would choose to use an image of domestic violence to sell a product. Unless it was an anti-violence product. The way these images were used was to glorify and glamourise violence to women, as well as glamourising prostitution, drug addiction, and murder. It does not matter that a person involved in the making of these images was abused. It matters that they miss the mark in putting a spotlight on violence and saying “stop.” That does not seem to be what the individuals involved were interested in at all. And, as such, their repeated protestations and statements that they were abused mean nothing. Many who are abused go on to abuse. These images are abusive to women in these situations. And it’s truly sad that this isn’t what Tiffany et al. see. All they are doing is coming up with excuses for what gives them the right to re-victimise women.
There is a line. Several years ago, America’s Next Top Model crossed it and were spanked. These individuals should realise that glamourisation of victimisation is not tolerated in our society. Shame on them for trying to wrap themselves in victimhood to justify a disgraceful act.
Good idea? probably not. However it sounds like most of you are loving the high perch of your moral self-righteousness a little too loudly.
Are these themes glamourous, no, are they in your neighbourhood, yeah. Someone putting it in front of you makes you more likely to deal with it than what you’re probably doing now, which is ignoring it, getting your double latte and getting on with your life.
I’m not surprised most of you are so offended, no one likes it when the mirror is turned on them and their forced to deal with the blemishes that their community wont address.
Grow a pair, nut up, and focus your anger and your rage towards fixing the problem as opposed to hating on a creative small business owner that has the stones to toss some controversy into the mix. Tear down her business for talking about your problems, or perhaps you could make it a rallying point to fix some of them.
Sadly, I think most of the posters here would rather indulge in a little moral high mindedness and keep on ignoring the real problem. bravo Edmonton, stay classy, and enjoy those lattes.
I would have no problems with this if they had used the image to promote awareness by partnering with a local women’s shelter or domestic violence cause in the campaign. But with this slogan “Look good in all you do”, they’re trying to use it to sell haircuts.
Is it an important issue? Absolutely. But using domestic violence as your canvas for promotional activity is low. I see nothing here that benefits victims of domestic violence.
And the slogan is purile. “Look good in all you do”? Domestic violence victims don’t ‘do’ anything to get hit, that’s something that happens TO them.
Honestly, it’s not the visual I have the biggest issue with, it’s the usage.
Thank you for mentioning my letter. Like lots of other people, I find the content appalling, but I hope that the ultimate result of all of this controversy is that someone, somewhere, learns a little bit about violence against women. I guess I am an optimist in that I believe that people really do want a world without violence, and that when violence is glamorized/trivialized that it is an honest mistake. I do urge that everyone, regardless of whatever side they’re on, be respectful; criticize ideas rather than attack people; listen/read more than we shout/type, etc. The key to ending violence is education; and I believe that for everyone who is engaging with the topic has something to learn and also something to teach.
Side note:
Does anyone else notice on their website that it says CASH ONLY…. kinda sketchy for a salon that is supposedly doing well.
http://www.facebook.com/messages/?action=read&tid=sZFoUjfH1Qw3ZZR7xE0LcA
And:
“All products used during all services at fluid are all natural along with reusable and recyclable materials.” (according to their website), however they offer “Brazilian Blowouts $300.00+” which contains varying levels of formaldehyde
sigh.
There are numerous business that accept cash only, some very high end resteraunts ask for cash only, and many many salons ask for cash only. Id say a mojority are doing it to ‘cheat books’, not because there business is suffering
As for the Brazillian blowouts, there is alot of salon products that have high amounts of Formaldehyde, ammonia etc.
Maybe search what Formeldehyde is,
Formaldehyde is an organic compound with the formula CH2O. It is the simplest aldehyde, hence its IUPAC name methanal.
Not really what you think, maybe do some research before you post……….
Sigh………….
Shame on them for this sickening way of selling ads!!!!!! Domestic violence is very real in many women’s lives…STOP PROMOTING IT AS AN AD CAMPAIGN!!!!!!! Thanks so much for sharing this, I will share on my fb page as well!!!! A boycott could be a good thing for this company!!!!
NOWHERE does this ad intentionally imply that the woman was abused. It’s a woman with a black eye and it could have happened a thousand different ways, the point is that she still looks good with it. It in no way promotes violence except to those who decided to interpret it that way. It may be a poorly thought out ad but I don’t think it’s fair to accuse the salon of intentionally glamorizing violence.
Put down your pitchforks, this was all a big misunderstanding.
Are you serious? The blog post has a picture of the model getting her black eye makeup done, posted by the OWNER of the salon, with the caption: “hottest battered woman I’ve ever laid my eyes upon.”
Battered woman. BATTERED WOMAN. But it’s not about domestic violence?
To Jill and certain followers:
I am an educated and open-minded man and I have never raised a hand to a woman… and I like these ads!
I in no way find these ads glamorize abuse, homelessness, etc. That is a very simplistic interpretation: You think that because the woman is glamorous and has been abused therefore it makes us think abuse is glamorous? come on! You are being extremely patronizing!
I personnally find the “abuse” picture very disturbing. I find the woman beautiful. She looks strong and yet she is a victim. The guy looks like an ass! Abusing THIS woman is crazy. It’s disgusting! In fact, abuse of ANY woman is disgusting! Oops! What happened? Did this picture actually incite me to conjure up these thoughts? Maybe this picture does have an impact. Increases awareness, empathy, sympathy, support … I don’t know.
The fact that these pictures have been released thru ads from a hair salon> So what? For me the picture is the picture, the effect it has remains the same.
You went on a rant and started telling everybody what these pictures make people think and feel before even opening up a discussion, asking a single question. Well I humbly but strongly disagree!
Yes, how selfish of me, expressing my opinion on my own blog and leaving it open to comments so people could discuss it! How dare I!
Your whole comment is nothing but patronizing. People in glass houses, etc etc.
You haven’t acknowledged one single opinion that diverges from your initial rant, such as some very insightful comments from a seemingly intelligent John, etc
Good job of addressing the content of my post as well.
Not everybody agrees with you, that’s all I’m saying, and if you didn’t start your blog off with such a one-sided rant maybe more people would take the time to tell you so
If you read the comments you would see that your first assertion is provably false, I have indeed addressed people who have different opinions. Including John’s, who you cite.
I am well aware that not everyone may agree with my interpretation of the ads/events, and that’s why comments are enabled. I’m not a journalist and I’m not pretending in my post not to have an opinion or to ‘see both sides’. I am presenting my perspective as a marketer in addition to the facts of the events as they happened (screenshots etc.) I don’t know why exactly you have the expectation that I should write my blog in the manner of a journalist, which I am not. I think people are smart enough to look at all the screenshots I’ve taken and come to their own conclusions. And they’re welcome to share those in the comments.
Just wanted to throw in my two cents:
Having never seen this marketing campaign, I booked an appointment 4 days ago and went for my first hair cut at Fluid Salon today (and happened to catch the news and hear the controversy before leaving home). I noticed a few things whilst sitting in my stylist’s chair:
1) The managers and staff were getting (ironically) THREATENING phone calls from many people, some of whom blocked their phone numbers, and then called to yell at staff.
2) The staff were very polite and professional while providing their services.
3) People were accusing one of the creators of the ad of lying about their personal past of being abused in order to look more sympathetic.
I didn’t know what the ads looked like until I went home to Google them, but I do know that people can be scarily threatening and rude to others when they are offended. The ads, while arguably offensive or in poor taste, were not targeted at individuals. The threats from the public, on the other hand, are.
For the record, threatening phone calls are NOT OKAY and I do not support that! People who want to complain about the ads should use appropriate language when doing so.
This whole mess just re-inforces how the anonymity of the blog world re-inforces hate, anger, and rage and does nothing to get the debate furthered.
Notice how all the calls to action here are for negative action? boycott, threaten, complain.
As a blogger you face the challenge of elevating the conversation or face certain irrelevance. I admire your ambition for sleuthing down a potentially controversial subject and doing an expose, but if you’re to do your high ambitions any service you should approach it as a real journalist would, and simply give it a lens, ask the questions, and let the public decide.
You’re editorializing this so fervently as to ensure your blog will join the millions of others that end up as the flotsam of angry vitriole floating in a big sea of hate and frustration.
I challenge you to convert this into a real dialogue, rewrite the post so it asks the question, as opposed to trying to answer it yourself. Let the public go at it, with compelling arguments for both sides, and you’ll have a successful blog, enlightened your readers, and perhaps even spurred someone to take some positive action.
I understand partly where you’re coming from, but I am not a journalist. Actually, I’m a marketer. And this is my personal viewpoint of the situation.
People are welcome to agree, disagree or discuss in the comments.
Aside from being a marketer or journalist, you did witness the growing vehemency of the commentators, and your site continued to feed into the fervor that went beyond a marketing campaign analysis. The ads you highlighted are controversial and deserved the initial criticism, but I just wish the internet belweathers of this fiasco could have taken a step back to get a better gauge on the situation and perhaps take a more cautionary approach to their own conduct.
The ad was a mistake, the resulting fervor was definitely mishandled by the salon, but it was readily apparent that the owner was in over her head. Her salon was vandalized, she has received death threats, these social media trending topics need to be treated with much more caution.
On a side note, I applaud you for setting up the donation site.
I don’t think I’m responsible for a few people who decided that vandalism and death threats are justified here. I’ve made it very clear on my Twitter feed, and in these comments, that I do not support that kind of action. The harshest call to action in my post is ‘go to Fluid’s FB page and express your disapproval’, which does not amount to ‘throw paint on their building’.
How exactly do you propose we “take a step back”? Delete the post when it gets traffic? I got a few thousand hits the first day and thought that would be the end of it. When I realized that number was still growing, I created the donation opportunity as a way for angry or disgusted people to contribute to domestic violence victims. Honestly this whole vandalism thing just happened TODAY. My biggest day for traffic was the day before yesterday.
Again, I don’t support the actions of these people, but I also don’t think I’m responsible for them based on a post about a marketing campaign and PR response gone wrong. You’ll notice the one time someone even mentioned death threats in the comments (and not even as a supporter) I was quick to jump in and say that’s Not Okay.
By the time Fluid issued their first apology letter it was too late to stuff this back into the can and pretend it didn’t happen.
Pingback: Are You Here About the Domestic Violence Salon Ad? | |
Wow….. I can’t even elaborate, nothing I have to say is polite enough to type.
What kind of logical mind doesn’t see failure written all over this.
Pingback: Fluid targets -fluid conversations | Edmonton Journal
Wow… you completely missed the point. Way to join the lynch mob…
I understand everyones anger here. When I first saw the photo I thought wow, that is really great art. I still think it is great art. I am a survivor of this type of abuse and that picture depicts exactly what happens in abuse. A black eye, then a beautiful gift, a offering of some sort and we all know what happens next. Yes, a vicious circle. And you know what, I would try and look good, even with the black eye and broken bones. Don’t we want to look good in everything we do!! This picture is reality folks and it’s time to face it!! Yeah, it is quite a ugly picture in the sense of how the woman looks but it is beautiful art. We are all guilty of taking advantage of something to make a gain. That’s how the world goes round!! Coming from a survivor of physical abuse I thoroughly enjoyed all the photos.
I was also going to say, isn’t advertising a great work of art!!!
Soooo….sure looks like the vast majority of Fluid supports are male. On all sites discussing this. Ryan J excluded of course, but most are behind the “art” of it. Now that’s really saying something…
I think that all of the Fluid ads speak to the strength women can find within themselves. A woman doesn’t choose to be battered. The woman pictured in this ad, as Sarah pointed out, is dismissive of the gift and the man behind her. She looks to be saying: “Despite this situation, having chosen to be with a man who is weak, I am strong. I will move on. He is behind me and I am choosing to present to the world an image of who I believe I am.”
Mike, I find your take really interesting. If that was the point of the ad, I would say it’s unclear. She seems to me pretty passive just staring out into the world, waiting for someone to save her maybe. But I guess we all kind of project our own thoughts and experience on this image.
If this woman is supposed to be viewed as a defiant one, I don’t think it delivered very well. I would have liked to see the woman walking out the door without a backward glance while the man cowers in a corner and the necklace lay tangled on the floor or maybe drooping limply from his hand. To me, that is strong and defiant. I don’t think the woman pictured really lives up to the heroine I wish I could see when I look at her. The man in the photo is clearly in the power position (above her, holding out the necklace like a noose).
(PS. I am not in any way implying women who stay in domestic violence situations are weak, this is purely an analysis of the imagery in a fake scene of violence.)
Jill, I agree it’s not clear, it’s open to interpretation, but I am drawn to its paradox, to the woman’s quiet resolve, to the man’s confusion that he and his gift are being ignored, that he can’t make this right by giving her money. She looks alone but is choosing to continue her life on her own terms.
Thank you for posting this. I can’t figure out why the salon had to resort to such tasteless ads in the first place. Did they not know that showing these images would bring a lot of ire toward the business? Shock doesn’t sell, it just makes people angry. When people get angry, they write comments and boycott businesses. Not a very lucrative sales tactic, IMO.
Why not show women with glammed up hair and makeup doing ordinary things such waiting in line at the coffee shop, sitting in a meeting, volunteering at a non-profit society, spending time with their children, watching TV, doing a puzzle, sitting in class, driving a car, or taking the bus to work? They could still use the “Look good in all you do” tagline and more people could relate to everyday activities than they would to violence or images that imply violence. The possibilities are endless and one could really have a lot of fun with making ordinary daily activities look glamorous.
Just my two cents.
It’s weird because the photo set has three really cool images, one of a woman serving tea, one of a woman revving a motorcycle and one of a woman working in the trades. It’s like the theme just went awry after a while.
Pingback: Salon vandalized over ad campaign - Gossip Rocks Forum
I’m finally commenting on this. I donated as I think that this is so important to do something about. As someone who is a survivor of intimate partner violence/domestic violence (sorry, also a researcher!), this ad made me feel sick to my stomach. I dealt more with emotional and mental abuse and less visible scars. My hair looked lovely most of the time. This ad is just sickening.
I actually showed it to my students and offered an extra credit for them to respond to the ad. I’m interested to see what htey have to say this week.
Thanks so much for your donation Holly! I really appreciate it. I hope we can meet the goal!
I would be really interested to hear what your students have to say about it. It really seems to be polarizing.
prepare to be featured on my Facebook page!
http://www.facebook.com/oneangrygirldesigns
Prepared! Thanks!
I don’t know which appalls me more, the ad or the comments defending it. Where’s the disconnect? Using violence as a marketing tool is unacceptable. I’m just beyond horrified.
Pingback: Battered Women, A Tasteless Ad, And A Clueless Apology | Crisis Communications | Mr. Media Training
Pingback: Crisis Communications: How To Apologize Like You Mean It | |