Assorted links


Can't believe KFC using skinny girls' butts to advertise the double down sandwich. If there was honesty in advertising, those sweatpants would be on 300-pound men.

One could just as easily say, 'If the GSEs caused the crisis, then why didn't bailing them out end the crisis?'

I wonder if KFC is discriminating in any way. Is KFC picking out women or are the women going to them and offering to help advertise? Usage of the first method would make me think that they could choose any body type they wanted, without repercussions. The second method, though, could lead to problems if they were to discriminate against a body type.

This also begs the question, What sort of body type is optimal for the display of their logo? The logo in the article's photo doesn't look wide enough to go all the way across or down even a tiny butt. So, given that the logo is of a moderate size, KFC would likely be OK with any size butt being able to properly display the logo on a clearly defined plane.

Now that it is reasonable to assume that any body type could properly display the logo, we can move on to auxiliary benefits/drawbacks of body type. The most obvious here is the friction between what people think about body types, how a body type affects the brand, and the specific aim(s) that KFC is trying to achieve.

I have never known KFC to advertise that they were a healthy food option. But are they willing to assert that they are obviously unhealthy? A large body could imply that KFC is an unhealthy choice, and skinny body may do the opposite, and an average body may do neither. To avoid complications with having to defend either position, it may be wise to choose people who are of average size.

Lynnehs: I'm a male, 120 pounds. I would support equal payment of $500 for being able to wear a t-shirt or hat. Anything with a clear logo should sell the product. However, the sex appeal of a hat or shirt may not be as prominent as the sweatpants. If they are on average size males, the sweatpants could be awkward, mainly due to the social norm that men don't advertise with their butt. On 300 lb. men, the sweatpants could be a turnoff to the brand.

It is certainly a fine line between decency and smut in advertising. Each side may have a case, though. KFC *is* offering the sweatpants and is obviously pandering to the sexual side of things. *But*, the women can choose to say no. Overall, it is saddening that women will degrade themselves just to make a quick 500. It's saddening that KFC will take advantage of the opportunity.

"Can't believe KFC using skinny girls' butts to advertise the double down sandwich. If there was honesty in advertising, those sweatpants would be on 300-pound men."

I don't get the hyperventilating over the Double Down sandwiches. I can only assume it's a knee-jerk reaction to the visual, as at between 460 and 540 calories they're better than a large chunk of other fast food offerings, and they're comparable (and again often better) than the amount of calories in a number of common home-cooked meals, much less higher-end restaurant meals.

Re KFC. All you need is awareness for the product name. It is a low-involvement choice, so nobody is making elaborate inferences about the medium (the posterior part of a well-trained young lady) and the associated consumption. You just need to capture attention and print that name in the mind of the prospect. The extra level of arousal (even if mild) that comes from staring at those young shapes only enhances the effect of low-involvement messages.

Left wing nut job extremists, which include Krugman and the Paulie Krugnuts, need to go back to school and relearn the definition of moral hazard. It has nothing to do with the religious morals they preach on a daily basis.

In case everyone has forgotten what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s when systematic risk hit the housing market, banks that made bad loans were bailed out. If you go back further you will see the same pattern.

In 10-15 years from now banks will make more bad loans knowing full well that the politicians will bail them out if they make bad bets. Heads the banks win, tails the taxpayer loses.

Those who think we have anything close to a free market or even capitalism need to pull their heads out of their asses.

People think that Double Down is worse for you than it is because it is purposefully marketted to make you think it's unhealthy, or as close as you can get to that without explicitly saying as such. It's called the Double Down, for God's sake. They very actively frame it as being a sandwich where the bread is two slabs of fried chicken (and then emphasize the sheer absurdity of such a notion) instead of simply noting that it's basically fried chicken cordon blue. If the Double Down had been sold as something you eat with a knife and fork at Panera, people wouldn't think it was that bad, but the way the marketed it, it's this over the top piece of insanity, that attracts customers because of how out there it is.

Comments for this post are closed