Cat-astrophic Marketing Decisions

The biggest marketing news on the Gold Coast this week has been the furore regarding a Gold Coast salon's attempt the drum up a bit of business while alleging to be raising money for charity.

The image, for those who are unfamiliar with it and who don't want to click the link, is of a headless woman in a black leather body suit with her legs spread wide and a cat strategically placed at her crotch - ha, ha, pussy, geddit? - and the text 'What's new pussycat?"

The concept is not original, the Singapore Cat Society and beauty supplier Ministry of Waxing did this more than a year ago (image may not be SFW).

That it stirred up comment is no surprise and whether the image is appropriate for display in a public environment is something that reasonable people can reasonably disagree over.

But there are a couple of very good lessons for businesses:

1. What is my motivation Clive? - even as a Gold Coast Bulletin reporter described critics of the poster as 'the fun police' on her Facebook page and the Australian Christian Lobby who were invited to comment questioned the appropriateness of the image, there is a little lesson to be learned from The Bible and the words of Christ.

Matthew 6: 1-4
“Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. 2 When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do—blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. 3 But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. 4 Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

In other words, if you are genuinely committed to a charity, then get on with it, don't make a big song and dance about it.

Or, if business is a little slow and you think a bit of free publicity will help keep the cash registers chiming, then go your hardest, but don't try to fool anyone that you're doing it for altruistic motives.

2. Ars Gratia Artis - means 'art for art's sake' not pinching someone's art for gratis.It seems our headless model has a name - quite a high profile name at that - Leighton Meester from the TV series Gossip Girl and the photo was pinched from a 2010 GQ magazine lingerie shoot.

When asked about the use of the image, the salon owner had this to say:

He said he had not specified which image to use in the campaign but had told his graphic designer the kind of thing he wanted and 'left it to him'. The graphic designer could not be contacted for comment.

Let's deconstruct that for those who are not in the advertising creative industry.

Graphic designers are taught (even though it should also be common sense) that one does not go pinching photographs off the Internet for use in client campaigns.

It would appear that the salon owner had given the designer the Singapore Cat Society image to view as the cat used in his poster has been given a bow tie (in the Singapore ad, ladies who took advantage of the offer were given a bow tie-shaped temporary tattoo, hence the connection, although it is not known if Gold Coast customers are to be similarly stamped.)

Could it be the salon owner already had the image that was eventually used and the graphic artist assumed the client had permission to use it?

Using a licenced image of a newsworthy celebrity is expensive and for a mere $39 'Brazilian XXX wax' with $1 going to charity, it seems highly unlikely that the salon owner went to the trouble and expense of buying the image. If he had, then why cut off the celebrity's head?

So what is a graphic artist to do when given a very specific brief from a client?

• The client could have arranged for a model to pose, but considering the lowball campaign ($39 wax/$1 to charity) it is unlikely the client would want to take the time and expense to arrange a shoot.
• The graphic artist could access a royalty-free stock photography library. Looking at one of the stock libraries Business Communications Management uses regularly and using a basic search of 'woman, nude' a similarly posed photograph was on the first page of results. Cost to purchase: $51.

Could it be that the owner didn't even want to go to that modest expense of purchasing a stock photo?

3. Nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs - that should be the reaction of the salon owners and the Animal Welfare League.

French fashion houses and Hollywood celebrities are very particular about how images are used, so it should not be surprising if the salon owner receives a 'cease and desist' letter from Yves St Laurent whose body suit and gloves are seen in the picture and the representatives from both GQ magazine and Leighton Meester.

One recalls a newspaper colleague receiving a C&D letter from Chanel's lawyers 20 years ago for describing buttons as either Chanel or Chanel-like on a non-Chanel outfit.

4. All's well that ends well? - That remains to be seen. While the salon has achieved its aim of generating publicity for itself, whether it causes a run on 'Brazilian XXX' waxes is another thing entirely.

One hopes their waxing is less sloppy then their advertising execution.