<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Friday Column &#124; Shockvertising</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.businessoffashion.com/2009/04/friday-column-shockvertising.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.businessoffashion.com/2009/04/friday-column-shockvertising.html</link>
	<description>The Business of Fashion is an essential daily resource for fashion creatives, business professionals and entrepreneurs in more than 200 countries around the world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:49:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ollie</title>
		<link>http://www.businessoffashion.com/2009/04/friday-column-shockvertising.html#comment-7110</link>
		<dc:creator>Ollie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessoffashion.net/?p=3522#comment-7110</guid>
		<description>I agree with Lauren, and I&#039;d like to take it a step further. How is the photo of the Woody Allen billboard an example of shockvertising? If anything it was an intellectual step up for the company - a statement about scandal and judging. 

I don&#039;t see anything wrong with that. They&#039;ve pretty much maintained that the whole time. 

Ads that make people talk - rather than shock - are a good thing. The Woody one fits that bill in my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Lauren, and I&#8217;d like to take it a step further. How is the photo of the Woody Allen billboard an example of shockvertising? If anything it was an intellectual step up for the company &#8211; a statement about scandal and judging. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see anything wrong with that. They&#8217;ve pretty much maintained that the whole time. </p>
<p>Ads that make people talk &#8211; rather than shock &#8211; are a good thing. The Woody one fits that bill in my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dahlia</title>
		<link>http://www.businessoffashion.com/2009/04/friday-column-shockvertising.html#comment-6734</link>
		<dc:creator>Dahlia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:16:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessoffashion.net/?p=3522#comment-6734</guid>
		<description>Shockvertising is nothing new.  I can take the example of United Colors of Benetton when Oliviero Toscani photographed for the company. Though I don&#039;t know how well seeing a photo of a man dying of AIDS is conducive into buying any clothing, it&#039;s become sort of iconic. 

If fashion brands will resort to innovative advertising, they might want to take a cue from the brightest graphic design agencies for something truly original.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shockvertising is nothing new.  I can take the example of United Colors of Benetton when Oliviero Toscani photographed for the company. Though I don&#8217;t know how well seeing a photo of a man dying of AIDS is conducive into buying any clothing, it&#8217;s become sort of iconic. </p>
<p>If fashion brands will resort to innovative advertising, they might want to take a cue from the brightest graphic design agencies for something truly original.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lauren</title>
		<link>http://www.businessoffashion.com/2009/04/friday-column-shockvertising.html#comment-6733</link>
		<dc:creator>Lauren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.businessoffashion.net/?p=3522#comment-6733</guid>
		<description>How is what American Apparel does in its ads any different than what Calvin Klein was doing in the &#039;90s. Couldn&#039;t &quot;shockvertising&quot;  just be another load of marketing bs? It sounds to me that advertisers are simply treating the American consumer similarly to the European consumer by offering up more risqué campaigns.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is what American Apparel does in its ads any different than what Calvin Klein was doing in the &#8217;90s. Couldn&#8217;t &#8220;shockvertising&#8221;  just be another load of marketing bs? It sounds to me that advertisers are simply treating the American consumer similarly to the European consumer by offering up more risqué campaigns.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

