Tom Ford For Douchebags
Tom Ford’s advertising campaigns have moved in a slow slimy crawl from titillation to approximations of hate fucks. First he gave us a nude in his Yves Saint Laurent M7 ads, which conveyed little about the fragrance, but at least some remnant of sensuality clung like the last sip of evening wine to those images. Later, he carved out a Gucci-font G into a female model’s pubic hair. The faux shock of that image tried so very hard to communicate sexuality. I think it achieved that goal, but by focusing on a rhetorical exhibition of sex, the models failed to radiate any sort of enjoyment about Gucci products. At least it reinforced the brand logo.
The old marketing chestnut reminds us, like a hangover or an outdated political bumper sticker, that “sex sells.” Yet what he’s selling now isn’t sex, and I’m not sure it’s fragrance either. He’s hoping you’ll buy into the insecure hostility surrounding male sexuality that has seemingly become fashionable, rather than remain just a meatheaded side effect of adolescence. This photo has all the creative juice and subtlety of a Limp Bizkit song. The Tom Ford for Men ads effectively communicate… that it smells good? That it makes you feel good? No. It only coveys Tom Ford did it all for the nookie. And then he branded and bottled it.
With his slow escalation using sex to demonstrate dominance rather than pleasure, I fully expect and dread the next campaign: perfume bukkake.
I presume the ad campaign was devised to attract attention by looking provocative. But perfume is not about being provocative. Perfume, like effective advertising, is about seduction. Jean Baudrillard once said, “Take provocation, for instance, which is the opposite and the caricature of seduction. It says: ‘I know that you want to be seduced, and I will seduce you.’ Nothing could be worse than betraying this secret rule. Nothing could be less seductive than a provocative smile or inciteful behavior, since both presuppose that one cannot be seduced naturally and that one needs to be blackmailed into it, or through a declaration of intent: ‘Let me seduce you.’”
Has much thought been given to what the audience has been provoked to do beyond getting turned on? I’ve never heard a guy announce “I have a hard-on, let’s go fragrance shopping!” Perhaps Tom Ford has deep insight into a side of the male psyche which I can’t possibly hope to understand. With that in mind, I decided to seek an opinion on the ad from a man. He asked to remain anonymous, so we’ll call him Deep Scrote:
What is there to say about this? Is it supposed to capture the essence of cleavage? [Ed. Note: And we should be concerned about it smelling like cleavage. If it’s anything like my great-grandma’s, who used to hug me into her bosom when I was little, then it’s gonna smell like boiled meat and mentholated cough drops.] Where will she place the bottle next? How does this stuff taste? She seems to want some . . . Did Tom Ford titty-fuck a blow up doll and put his jizz in a bottle? Will that smell good? Who exactly is the target audience here?
Ooh, look… a bottle getting squeezed between two breastseses. That looks exciting. Look at her mouth… expectant! Gosh, I wish that was me between those oily blobs of silicone. What is it about gay old Tom Ford that gets the ladies so hot? Maybe it’s his scent. If I smelled that greasy perhaps I could get a good titty-fuck, too. Maybe I should buy whatever is in that bottle and slather myself in it. Then none of the blow-up dolls could resist me.
This is an advertisement, isn’t it? ‘Cause an advertisement is supposed to sell something and I’m not sure that whatever niche audience this is targeted at is worth the trouble. If Tom Ford wants to sell this stuff he needs to rethink his strategy. Selling stuff to guys is easy: You take a guy or small group of guys and surround them with a bunch of hot women to fawn all over them. Axe Body Spray figured it out! Hell! The tobacco and alcohol industry have been doing it for years. Whether consciously or subconsciously men get the message and buy the product. People want to be sexy, not creepy . . . unless that IS the target audience. Tom Ford’s Perfume for Pervs. Buy it TODAY! Tom Ford is weird . . . I’m gonna go watch Zoolander now.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I have to admit, this is the first time I’ve heard of Tom Ford. I’m not really into perfume. I just stumbled onto this blog (very happily) looking for some perfume reviews as I’m looking for a long lasting citris. Anyway back to Tom, if he’s a queen, then this advertisement obviously shows why! His taste in photographic subject gives us quite an intimate look into his demented sexual psyche. He is obviously a narcissist, a misongyist, and we already know a homosexual who knows nothing about women. He has no idea about female sexuality, nor heterosexual men’s. He probably in his puny little mind thinks that women actually like to be debased and humiliated; and he’s the one who enjoys doing this the most. A freudian dream to analyse this one. Hope it flops.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Peggy, I think this ad campaign is disturbing mostly because of its crassness, and in a way, its smug stupidity. Tom Ford’s not really unique in his meathead attitude, since it seems to be gaining traction all across our pop culture (which feeds back into the loop of culture.) The basic idea behind his fragrance ads, the recent spate of Budweiser “Real Men of Genius” ads, the Burger King “I Am Man” campaign, etc. all strike me as less motivated by misogyny than self-loathing misandry: overweening ads aimed at men which characterize them basically as infantilized cavemen. (Not that self-loathing doesn’t pop up in women’s ads, of course.) There’s a terrible blandness in Ford’s vision here. As Mojo Nixon might say, “Tom Ford has no Elvis in him.” Elvis was considered obscene back in the day, partly because he was pushing the boundaries of what’s acceptable to society. Obscenity is good for art, and good for our culture, but the image doesn’t rate up to the level of the obscene. The one pictured at top merely repeats stale, rhetorical pornographic imagery without the actual fleshy fun of pornography. I don’t think it has anything to do with him being gay - he’s a meathead. Meatheadedness has nothing do with one’s sexual identity, but rather with the philosophy that the only way to win at anything is to be more aggressive and obnoxious than everyone else.
As far as long lasting citrus fragrances - it’s a bit hit and miss to find one depending on the individual, but I’ve had good luck with Czech & Speake’s Neroli, The Different Company’s Divine Bergamot, to name a couple. D&Gs Light Blue also lasts for forever and a day on me, and while it’s not a fragrance I like, it’s quite popular.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
That is one disturbing piece of advertisement! There are a million things I could say about this one but I just feel… blank and tired. The whole “Sex sells” concept is terribly outdated but no one seems to have informed Mr pervo-Ford about that.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Wow, you’re back with a vengeance, aren’t you! Okay … first of all, TF repulses me. At least with the M7 ad, you could imagine/pretend that Tom found the imagery beautiful, and to me it IS beautiful, even if I think they’ve shorted the model a few inches with their coy shadows… uh, back on topic, the Gucci G one has always bothered me, the link wouldn’t work for me but I think it’s got another woman kneeling right in front of her? Ugh. Stuff of nightmares. Moving on — we have perfume bukkake, I think Etat Libre d’Orange’s Magnificent Secretions and Don’t Get Me Wrong, Baby I don’t Swallow might qualify. Semi-finally, those silicone boobs are horrifying, but convey perfectly how TF sees women (plastic objects). Finally, I think the Dolce & Gabbana ads with naked plasticized people (ladies strangling each other and men in briefs with giant hard-ons) are really coming close to capturing a similar aesthetic. It’s like … a group hate fuck? Okay, off to shower.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:54 am
I just refuse to rise to the bait. It’s so obvious, so stupid and so fifteen-year old. Of course it means that unless the scent is mind-blowingly good, I will be merrily trashing it very soon.
I actually find the ad with Tom himself funny: poor Tom! After all that photoshop and he still looks like he needs a shower and is touching up his implants with a Sharpie. I’ll bet the models other hand is reaching for a Handi-Wipe to blot his neck for him.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:24 am
New reader here, March sent me over from PerfumePosse. Kudos for originality of your analysis, interesting ideas. Me, silicon tits give me the heebie jeebies. Best way to keep me from buying product, show me the fake tits. Also, I’ve sniffed Mr Ford’s wares & am so far not impressed. Tried the amber, found the incense hit me as sour & then the honeyed amber choked me with sweet. Thanks, no.
March … I hate those D&G ads because they’re plastic & fake & anti-erotic. They access & mimic the dark sensuality present in some sadomasochistic imagery in a most ignorant way. There is no passion, no erotic connection, no intimacy - just unhappy dead people in strangely accessorized outfits.
Re: Obscenity. A friend sent me this quote once: “Art is never chaste and should be kept away from all innocent ignorants. If people are not ready for it, they must not be allowed to get close. Yes, art is dangerous. If it’s chaste, then it’s not ART”. Pablo Picasso, 1971
I’ve gone to court to fight against the Atty General’s rulings about obscenity & art. I disagree with many people about what is & isn’t obscene, and for what reason … which is a whole ‘nother discussion. To me fake tits are as obscene as the most anorexic Vogue models, and for the same reason (which has very little to do with sexual content). Anyway, hate the tits, think the ad’s lame, not fond of the juice. Glad to find your blog, going to read thru your older entries now :)
August 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I think ol’ Tom is getting exactly the reaction he wanted from his ad campaigns - controversy. And he will laugh all the way to the bank while the righteous get up in arms.
Don’t you think that all men really want is a blow-up doll? With one of those and a bottle of the new Tom Ford for men, they’re all set.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
It’s like looking at faux Helmut Newton pretending to be ironic. And of course, that knowing ‘Ah but I’m only playing’ makes it all the more trite and vacuous (and retro no less - does anynoe really enjoy that kind of irony any more if they’re a grown up?). This trend is depressing.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Well, I have to admit I love(d) the M7 ad, as well as the scent itself. At least it seemed like it contained the shallowest nod towards the Classical - the beauty of the male form or what-have-you. (And I confess to loving the Real Men of Genius “Mr. 50-SPF Sunblock-wearer” radio spot…) I’m disturbed by the dehumanizing effect of the other two ads, but I’m not sure I should dignify them with disgust. It’s very sad that Ford has settled for the cynical, I’m-having-you-all-on route: I think he made some great choices, scent-wise, at YSL and Gucci.
Your posts are so awesome, Katie, because I always come away with a great phrase, reference or line. I’m ashamed to say that this time it is simply the alias “Deep Scrote”.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
This makes me want to gag. And *not* in the way Tom has in mind. What a moron.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I’ve been thinking about this since I saw the blog a couple of days ago. A couple of reactions come to mind. One is Tom seems confused about sex. I guess that’s pretty obvious. I feel he is trying to outdo hetero..be a bigger man than the average man…exponentially more the man…but he forgot to check in with what that really is about…if I were a friend of his, well, I’d be a bit worried about him…and then there’s a ego issue here too. While we usually see self images going with those egos we see a perfume bottle nestled in the fake tits. So Freudian, Tom! Lastly, the crassness of it conceptually, graphically makes me lose confidence in his ability to create rich haunting perfume experiences. There’s no mystique here that will ever come to be associated with Tom’s name. I don’t want the liquid emmitting from Tom’s perfume penis on my skin..I guess I’m saying…I don’t think anyone does. I kind of feel sad about the whole thing. Those are my thoughts.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Puerility, thy name is Tom…
May I use the un-PC term, “retard” ?
Thanks, babe.
Love your style, and your content.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
This guy has never, ever interested me. I have been so turned off by his personality alone, I didn’t even bother to sniff Black Orchid. What a tool.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
You and the commenters said everything that is on my mind. I can`t stand Tom Ford, his smug face, his horrible ads. I like the M7 ad (one of reasons is that the model isn`t all oiled and shiny), but the rest truly disgusts me. So much, that I am not interested in his scents, even if someone offered them to me for free.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Wow, that ad is the OPPOSITE of erotic! The really good ones want you to become part of the picture: “Wow, that could be me with that hot man/woman - I had better get some of that perfume now!” This has the reverse effect of feeling like the kind of nightmare where you suddenly realize that you are out in public with no clothes on. It is embarrassingly bad and retrograde. Notice that the woman does NOT seem to be enjoying herself AT ALL. It’s like those porno films where the women supposedly love being draped over the hoods of cars in a contortionist position while being sodomized. Uh, no, I don’t think so, no one I know thinks that is a good time. Anyone who gets their ideas of what women like, or ARE like, from porn images has a big marketing problem.
The hip wannabe boys who read Maxim might like it, but I personally don’t care what they think. It will be a cold day in Hades before I buy anything by Tom Ford.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Thanks for the ideas for a long lasting citris. I will look those up, many thanks!
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:36 am
When I saw these ads I was just not sure what to say. I have always loved Tom, but he is disturbing me. I will say the one with the boobs must be an “in the fold” boob job because she artfully has her pinkies covering her scar….what can I say? I work in women’ s health care.
The Vanity Fair cover with naked waify actresses grossed me ou, but this…THIS…I just do not know what to think. I do love his ruffley shirt though, and I do think he is hot.
Maybe I am just not right.
Hope you are well Katy Lady!
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
I think if Tom Ford read all of the above comments, he’d think “Mission acomplished!”. He’s obviously going for that shock factor. Smart man.
All i’m saying is if it smells great, i’m buying.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I agree with the post about faux Helmut Newton overtones. The obvious distortion of a woman almost to the point of a beach ball waearing a “pearl necklace” albeit unseen is so dimwitted.
Blame the parent company, Lauder for allowing this to give us migraines.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Thank you for the review! TF must be using the same ad group as Calvin Klein - woman-as-object-sex-fantasy-S&M whatever! Sex sells? NO - sensuality sells. Anyway, I don’t understand the buzz about TF’s fragrances. I smell nothing original.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
TOM FORD is trendy… he do not have new ideas… very boring…
check all of his former fragrance campaigns when he was responible:
GUCCI ENVY MEN AND WOMAN
GUCCI RUSH
LAUDER COLLECTION YOUTH DEW AMBER NUDE
YVES SAINT LAURENT M7
YVES SAINT LAURENT RIVE GAUCHE POUR HOMME
YVES SAINT LAURENT PARIS
YVES SAINT LAURENT OPIUM
YVES SAINT LAURENT NU
Also the same style in this fashion campaigns… no further comment!
October 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
well, all I have to say is if you’re going for tits, go for some really beautiful tits, some real breasts that the model does not have to clutch with her claws to hide scars. also, tom ford is probably an alien. someone should buy him a blow-up sheep.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:21 am
Much of advertising is about sex. Much of perfume is about advertising. Perhaps you want me to ooh and ah over the use of Jean Baudrillard, which by itself is fine, but to make what point? Your point is: “Perfume, like effective advertising, is about seduction”. Yawn. Let me rephrase it correctly: The idea that perfume is about seduction is the result of effective advertising. Some people are in so deep they cannot see that their romanticism of perfume is the color of Kraft Mac ‘N Cheese. I don’t take issue with people liking these things, I take serious issue getting all high and mighty about how pure perfume is without all this “sex stuff”.
Lets look at the beginning of this blog.
“a slow slimy crawl from titillation to approximations of hate fucks. First he gave us a nude in his Yves Saint Laurent M7 ads, which conveyed little about the fragrance, but at least some remnant of sensuality clung like the last sip of evening wine to those images.”
Lets start with “conveyed little about the fragrance.” Please tell me what ads convey something about the fragrance? I ran a google search for perfume ads and this benign site came up first:
http://perso.orange.fr/imagesdeparfums/en/
I looked for an ad that conveyed something of the fragrance. The only ones that did contain a picture of an ingredient. Then again, what’s a picture of a flower in a world of synthetics? And lets just say even flower filled ads were not the norm…
If by “convey something of the fragrance,” you mean the idea of the fragrance they are marketing to you, well then there is plenty of that. So I guess if he called it “Tom Ford’s Sex Sells For Men”, or “Tom Ford’s Porn Star For Men” it would be okay? How about “Tom Ford’s Titty Fuck Perfume”? Compared to most perfume ads this would actually “convey the fragrance.”
But lets be honest, that’s not what it was about to begin with. You said as much when you seemed to suggest you want to be romanced by the idea of perfume and its advertising delivery devices. So that first argument about a lack of connection between product and ad was spurious. Really you want to maintain the mystique of perfume that resides in this comfortable space between titillating and safe (whereever that space resides for you), provided you are not asked or forced to reflect on how the mystique is conjured. I certainly don’t think Tom Ford is acting as an advertising activist and trying to shock us into acknowledging the brute fact that sex has been driving perfume advertising (and hence the popular mystique of perfume) for quite some time. No, I think he is trying to promote his own name through a perfume which in turn is promoted by sex. Gee, that is so new! What will they think of next? Probably sex. Meanwhile, what will you think of next? Probably that men read the Victoria Secret catalogue to be “seduced.” Yeah, whatever. And this is relevant because last I checked it was called “Tom Ford For Men.” I’m sorry your schoolgirl crush on the idea of perfume was so jarringly interrupted. Before you go back to sleep I might suggest you put down the Jean Baudrillard and get a slight handle on Freud first.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:38 am
I’m not a fan of this ad campaign nor much of what TF’s done since his departure from Gucci Group, but I do think he was an extremely influential figure in fashion for years having revived Gucci and YSL.
I’m hoping he drops this desperate act soon and actually starts producing products worth something- the Lauder collection and these fragrances haven’t been very reflective of his level of talent..
Lily
BeautyMaverick.com
October 24th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I don’t think men’s fragrance ads need to be presented only by nude.
If customers want to see it that style, there are many more artistic ways to make it!
Just another out-of-idea piece
October 26th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Haha wouldn’t that be funny if tom ford has nothing better to do that pose as “ricky tool” and run around justifying his ad campaign? too bad he would only sounds bitter and petty.
I just showed that ad to two guy friends. I asked them if they would remember it if they went to go buy cologne. They laughed and said they’d remember her boobs. *shrug*
November 16th, 2007 at 1:44 am
I’m a media student and i’m doing my critical research piece on advertising and the way provocative images are used excessively, especially on male toilettries. I came accross this image whilst browsing and this ad proves my exact point! I showed other people other examples of Tom Fords work and they all laughed. I asked them if they would remember the fragrence due to the advertisement, and most people (about 7/10 - you can’t help but get some macho imature males) said that they found the ads repulsive and would would usually go for a fragrence for its brand not how its advertised! If any of you couls give me your thoughts for my resarch on excesive provocative advertising i’d be very greatful.
Ryan
November 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
How do you feel about the other photo Mr. Ford took for his fragrance?
I found this photo here
http://www.me-me-me.tv/2007/10/10/now-thats-what-we-call-product-placement/#more-4140
November 21st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Sorry, hit “Submit” before I was finished. Anyway — in case the link doesn’t work, this is supposedly also a legitimate ad photo from Tom Ford, of the same bottle of fragrance nestled in between a man’s legs just beneath his buttocks. A man’s hands and arms (with shirtsleeves and watch visible) are framing the man’s behind and the bottle. Although the hands are slightly shiny with that oily look that’s on the female model’s hands, the nude male isn’t covered with oil. IMHO he’s trying to be similarly sexually provocative, but the photo fails because it’s just not as ugly (and therefore reaction-inducing) as the photo with the female model.
I’m interested in any and all responses.
Thank you,
Alvin
March 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
you’re right. Tom Ford has no Elvis in him and neither do his fragances. I’ve been trying to think of who else would fit Mojo’s song and you hit it. Such a sorry campaign.