• by Seana Mulcahy , May 15, 2006

Ever walk by someone and see FCUK on their shirt? Did you do a double-take? I know at first I did. Prior to that, I thought French Connection UK seemed like a cool brand. Ever since, I thought it was campy--so campy I'd throw it in the same category as the, "I'm with him" T-shirt.

Well, it seems as if the company is at it again. I'm sure only few have seen the actual 90-second spot. It is an ad designed to introduce the new spring fashion line. Harmlessly titled "Fashion vs. Style," the ad is raising eyebrows.

Here's a quick recap of the ad, created by Creative agency Beattie McGuinness Bungay. The scene is set in some sort of dimly lit, dusty, cellar-like room. Viewers see two attractive women in some sort of a face-off that begin to violently rip off parts of their clothes. It's a Xena Warrior Princess-meets-Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon-meets The Matrix feel as the women start attacking each other. There are grunts and groans, kicks and punches. The ad segues into the women being soaked with water then in a passionate embrace wildly kissing, then head butting each other.

What do you think? Is it creative and edgy or campy and offensive? Well in my conservative Beantown, our mayor is up in arms. It seems customers aren't too enticed either. According to the Belfast Telegraph, at its annual shareholder meeting, the company admitted that profits would again miss forecasts.

The two women fighting in French Connection's latest campaign, which is plastered over the side of London buses and taxis, are meant to represent a quote from Yves Saint Laurent, the French designer, who once said: "Fashion fades, style is eternal." The battle pits fashion against style; the reconciliatory kiss suggests that neither wins. Check it out here.

Sure we all want to be creative and talked about when we create ads. However, do we want to be talked about in this way? I personally think not all "ink" is good.

This debate made me think of other ads that evoked such controversy. I remember the whole Pepsi Madonna hoopla back in 1989. Pepsi signed Madonna for a $5 million year-long endorsement. Remember she was crawling all around clad in black lace singing "Like a Prayer." Seems Catholicism and soda didn't mix so well, cause Pepsi was forced to can the deal.

Abercrombie & Fitch also comes to mind. A few years ago the company was represented by near-nude 14-year-olds on billboards, TV spots, print, packaging, online and in catalogues. The imagery caused so much controversy the ads were banned. Even the company catalogues had to have a protective sheet over its cover.

How 'bout the Paris Hilton ad for Carl's Jr.? In the spot to promote the BBQ Six Dollar Burger, Paris is washing a car using lots of soap, scantily clad and bending over. In the background is the song "I Love Paris." After she bites into the burger, Paris says, "That's hot." Kingsmill Bread in the UK had an ad that featured the late, great Elvis Presley as a spokesman. Seems like most viewers associated with Elvis in his bad time, as his snack of choice was fried peanut butter sandwiches.

I'm sure the list goes on. So I ask you, what makes an ad offensive? Can you think of any other ads that caused debate? Better yet, did your agency create them? Post to the SPIN blog.