ABC Bans Lane Bryant Lingerie Ad as "Too Sexy"

[Treacle]

Yes...this is the very same ABC which shows the Victoria's Secret fashion every year. Fox News has also declined to run the Lane Bryant spot. Weird.

For your perusal, here's the Lane Bryant commercial and here's the Michael Bay Victoria's Secret commercial (which was shown on ABC during the last fashion show).

Obviously, curvy chicks are much too sexy for regular TV.

Edit: Link to article.

[The Hodag]

Is that actually the company line for the networks? Too sexy?

That's really weird.

But I have a feeling the ad will find a receptive audience in a certain Benbo thread...

[greg donovan]

Is that actually the company line for the networks? Too sexy?

That's really weird.

But I have a feeling the ad will find a receptive audience in a certain Benbo thread...

it has been there for a few hours now. it is quite an ad indeed.

[Kirblar]

There are a LOT of close-ups in the Lane Bryant ad, which maintain for a much longer time than in the other linked commercial. I kinda see why they pulled it.

[BWC Boston]

There are a LOT of close-ups in the Lane Bryant ad, which maintain for a much longer time than in the other linked commercial. I kinda see why they pulled it.

Honestly? Me too. The Victoria's Secret commercials may have even more revealing garments in them, but the fast editing defuses their effects a lot. The Lane Bryant ad lingers over every closeup for several seconds before moving on, and it does border on gratuitous.

There's also the fact that the Lane Bryant girl is getting gussied up specifically to go out and have hot, hot sex. Victoria's Secret models are normally just walking around empty lofts and leaning against things in dramatic lighting.

[greg donovan]

however, anyone with an internet connection is now going to see the ad and all lane bryant had to do was pay to make it.

[NeverWanderer]

That's... really fucking ridiculous.

[Treacle]

Honestly? Me too. The Victoria's Secret commercials may have even more revealing garments in them, but the fast editing defuses their effects a lot. The Lane Bryant ad lingers over every closeup for several seconds before moving on, and it does border on gratuitous.

There's also the fact that the Lane Bryant girl is getting gussied up specifically to go out and have hot, hot sex. Victoria's Secret models are normally just walking around empty lofts and leaning against things in dramatic lighting.

There are a LOT of close-ups in the Lane Bryant ad, which maintain for a much longer time than in the other linked commercial. I kinda see why they pulled it.

I hadn't considered either of those perspectives. Thanks, guys.

[The Hodag]

Honestly? Me too. The Victoria's Secret commercials may have even more revealing garments in them, but the fast editing defuses their effects a lot. The Lane Bryant ad lingers over every closeup for several seconds before moving on, and it does border on gratuitous.

Just watched it again and I didn't see a single shot that stayed on her for more than two seconds. I'm not even sure if they quite hit the two-second mark. And most shots were the Bay-esque quick cuts.

I think the shots in the Lane Bryant ad are the same shots you see on every lingerie commercial, she's just got more flesh bouncing around than we're used to.

There's also the fact that the Lane Bryant girl is getting gussied up specifically to go out and have hot, hot sex. Victoria's Secret models are normally just walking around empty lofts and leaning against things in dramatic lighting.

Maybe that's it, though it seems pretty ridiculous to hide that lingerie might lead to sex. Baby steps, I suppose, baby steps...

[Ashwin Pande]

That girl is fat.