WAS IT GOOD FOR U?

This section is dedicated to debating whether or not advertising actually entices or repulses us when we are looking to buy a new product or try a new service. The first installment might be familiar to you as the controversy around this ad has garnered a worldwide response which might have been more than the designers originally bargained for.

In February Dolce & Gabbana pulled the above ad from the Spanish market because the Women's Institute of Spain, a government agency, released a statement saying the ad glorified "chauvinist violence". At the time, Spain was also responding to the recent murders of ten women, one of whom were murdered the day the ad was released.

D&G's response was to ask stylists to "boycott" the Spanish market and threaten to pull out of advertising there altogether saying that Spain was "behind the times" and that they were only trying to convey "an erotic dream, a sexual game."

In a perhaps unexpected twist on the part of D&G, their own government wasn't so keen on the ad either. The Italian government demanded an apology from the designers and stated that if the ad was not pulled before International Women's Day, it would advise a boycott on D&G goods. Other countries, including the U.S., followed suit. In the U.S. the National Organization For Women called the ad a "stylized gang rape."

We should also add, that we did see commentary on the ad that went in the opposite direction from the public, some of whom felt that the ad was too over the top with oily, half naked and slightly effeminate men who probably just wanted to steal the model's dress.

If the ad was intended to provoke Dolce & Gabbana's consumer market into brand awareness, it certainly did that by raising the controversy level to new heights. Yet it begs the question, is that kind of awareness good for a brand keeping in mind that most critics did not object to the ad's sexuality, but it's depiction of what they felt was violence against women?

We also wondered why, if D&G truly felt their advertising was innocent in it's intention, did they issue these statements? "We have decided to cancel ... the advertising image that has caused such repercussions within human interest groups and individuals,", "We were looking to recreate a game of seduction in the campaign and highlight the beauty of our collections," and "It was never our intention to ... offend anyone or promote violence against women," Doesn't this also negate what they were trying to do in the first place by back pedaling?

What's your opinion?