Bonds take ‘BOOBS’ to the next level with outdoor promotion

I think the breast cancer survivor’s comments are valid. If you do to the Cancer Council’s Pink Ribbon Day fights all womens cancers, not just breast cancer.

Ben, it’s not about breast cancer, it’s about bras.

There’s no confusion about this out there in the real world. A couple of people got the wrong end of the stick but the vast majority have seen it for what it is – a funny campaign for Bonds bras. The ‘reveal’ will only help cement that.

Everyone calm down and stop trying to make mountains out of molehills.

Onya Bonds. Simple, smart, nothing to do with breast cancer.

As a female I’m not offended by the term ‘boobs’ but see this as some very lazy marketing by Clems. Boring!

Bonds’ comments are disingenuous and misrepresentative of what the issues really are. I have stated repeatedly that Bonds can use the word ‘boobs’ in any way they like to launch their new bra range and I have also said repeatedly, that the word itself is not offensive. It’s clear that the above comments are designed to take steam out of the issue by conflating two things that are irrelevant to each other.

Without detailing the complaint again (in the vain hope someone might actually read it without erroneously calling me a prude), Ill just say that NBCF are more than well aware of this issue (hence their subtle backpedalling) as Bonds should be. The sexualisation of breast cancer is such an established concept, I was frankly shocked that Bonds chose the strategy they did to link their brand to the NBCF. Whatever they wanted to do with their new bra range, this link was a strategic mistake.

From a strategist’s perspective it seems lazy, obvious and lacking in rigor. This was confirmed when the CEO of NBCF, Carole Renouf, mentioned on radio yesterday (during a segment I participated in) that according to Bonds, 70%+ of women refer to their breasts as ‘boobs’. I’m surprised its not higher. I am also surprised that no one thought it was wise to check in with women who’ve had breast cancer on what they call their breasts and whether they think its ok to link the cancer they suffer from to cutesy, fun, euphemisms. Bonds could have asked me. I conducted a qualitative survey on this issue, within a sample of 50 women suffering breast cancer, a couple of years ago. Guess what? The vast majority (there are exceptions) don’t like it.

So it is the greatest irony to me that phase two of this campaign was to talk about ‘boob esteem’. Because I know a number of women, like myself, who could talk to you about that issue for hours.

As ‘the individual who is a breast cancer survivor’ I would be more than happy to discuss this further anytime with Tanya, Bonds and the NBCF, all of whom have my contact details as per their request.

This is hardly lazy. Crystalising an idea into one word for an outdoor campaign and linking that unequivocally to a brand and new product launch is near impossible.

It’s 2013. There are more damaging things in society to worry about than an underwear manufacturer using the word BOOB.

Chill T.F.O everyone. In their capacity as an underwear maker, this is a relevant and own-able for Bonds. And to the people saying this is ‘lazy’ marketing and strategy: it’s simple. And you’re talking about it. More importantly, Joe Q. Public is talking about it.

Well done to all involved.

The laziness here is not in the use of the word boobs, rather in the few words before it. How many campaigns use the “we’re for” line these days.

“We’re for dogs” started it (I believe)… and it was great.

There’s a law firm that’s “we’re for fair”. The Daily Tele is “we’re for Sydney”… and the list goes on.

Get a new line already.

BOOBS is at the tip of my tongue this summer.

hmm. I saw this add on the side of a bus recently, and while I was unaware of the campaign, I assumed it was Bonds due to the use of their lettering/logo style. I also thought it was cheap. A cheap shock-effort on behalf of Bonds to flog their wears. They can play the game all they like and marry it to any “awareness” group fool enough to jump on the bandwagon, at the end of they day, that’s what they’re doing and that’s floggin us a product which is (probably) no better or worse than their competitors.

I’ll be passing up their offer to increase my “boob-esteme”. Thanks though :-/

They seem to have captured the teen market…
Picked up my 13-year-old from school today who along with all her friends, were doubled over laughing at the kids lining up for the bus in front of BOOBS, and the poor teacher on bus-duty determinedly not looking.

We’ll know we’ve reached real parity when Bonds runs a BALLS campaign on the sides of buses, and donates a trtruckload of money to research for testicular cancer.

Great Idea, great add, any one complains…Get a life. !
There are too many out there just spend their time looking for things to get upset/angry about. They should be looking for things to be happy/gratefull about.

I’m so sad, and Margi, you have a good point….what makes big companies feel they have the power and permission to use a woman’s private part to advertise for their financial gain, i mean i know its been happening for decades but how low can you go? talk about no morals. and yes… they might as well do a Balls campaign while theyre at it, that way all our young children can be exposed to men genetelia all day every day, this is sick!

Look, get real folk. Keep your complaints for when they use the word BOMBS in advertising. BOOBS are harmless.

And if they had have done a “BALLS” campaign with men’s underwear? To raise money for testicular cancer or prostate cancer? As always breast cancer is the main event, more popular and much more saleable. Don’t be fooled into thinking that Bonds is taking on such a philanthropic role. It’s advertising and selling tactics at its most lowest level. Advertising strategists who come up with this stuff are two rungs below the ambulance chasing lawyers.

PR stunts to add value to advertising

I have seen this ad posted just twice on FB, one was ‘lol check this out,’ and the other was ‘wtf?’ I assumed it was just a Bonds publicity stunt for breast cancer, and as someone who lost my ‘boobs’ in 2005 I hoped I wasn’t being reduced to a mere set of mammories… but apparently I am.. Now I know it’s a branding campaign that they’re trying to justify by linking it to Breast Cancer I’m a bit disappointed. For the record, as a size 14-16 with size C (reconstructed) breasts, Bonds bras don’t fit me anyway – which is the main reason I don’t wear them – not because I’m unaware they make them.

Bonds is looking for an association with breast cancer for their own gain (as are most retailers that advertise their philanthropy), but advertising boobs everywhere is tactless and a low form of advertising in my opinion. There is nothing to it but the shock factor that comes from having BOOBS in large writing posted all over public places. Boobs are nothing to be ashamed of, ofcourse, but where do we draw the line…. BALLS. PENIS. whats the difference??!

Bonds sell underwear. There is nothing wrong with the campaign. They are not showing genitalia despite poor sad Georgia’s suggestion otherwise. When you need to make things up to make a point, you don’t have a point. If I were the CEO of bonds I would simply can the donations to cancer research since it somehow offends people & just sell quality bras. A BALLs campaign would be awesome btw. It isn’t like men would have a problem with it or any money that found its way into prostrate cancer research for example. It kills a lot more people than breast cancer.

All very good for industry insiders to comment on the connection with breast cancer awareness, bra fit etc, but I venture to guess that many of the great unwashed will have seen nothing more than billboards screaming out said word. Not everyone consumes advertising in the way we’d like!

So the billboard should be taken at face value – a puerile and unimaginative way of dealing with a brief to sell bras. It’s the equivalent of a 5 year old shouting the rudest word s/he thinks s/he can get away with, anything to get attention with scant regard for environmental appropriateness or indeed the effect on the attitudes of onlookers ie ‘what an annoying child’. I’m astounded by the comments above about how good an ‘idea’ an equivalent with ‘Balls’ would be. Wow. How about ‘Poo’ for a toilet paper brand?

Most of us soon grow out of the ‘anything for shock value’ approach, and I had through our industry had also done so. Given Bond’s great work of the past few years, it’s a mystery to me why this piss poor effort got through.

I also agree that the ‘Bonds is for boobs’ headline is an incredibly inappropriate not to mention unoriginal recycling of “Pal is for Dogs’. Then the stated aim ‘to rectify poor ‘boob-esteem’ through changing the bra-buying experience’. Oh please. Perhaps instead of featuring a bunch of post-pubescant nymphs in the ads, a multitude of different body shapes could be featured, a la Dove – might be more effective at addressing self esteem.

As for the tie up with breast cancer awareness, Bonds GM marketing exposed it as being tenuous and cynical when quoted above: “This campaign isn’t about breast cancer it’s about bras”. NBCF seemed to agree in its statement “breast cancer must be seen in the context of the whole woman”. Yes, well those naughty boys might see the whole woman as a pair of ‘boobs’ but few women would agree.

I’m not a prude but I am offended by lazy shitty advertising.

LOL, it never ceases to amuse me how people, especially those who write eloquent and long winded dissertations, about marketing campaigns, pointing out all the things they think are wrong with the campaign, or it’s implementation. Here’s a newsflash… IF YOU DON’T GET IT… IT’S NOT AIMED AT YOU ! So get over your arrogant, condescending selves, and crawl back to your mediocre job or uni course, and spare us your feeble, self-important rants.

If they are doing this then they should do a line of male underwear and entitle it ‘Dicks’ or ‘balls’. I bet they wont but. I bet this comment wont even be posted.

Well put Chris. This is after all just a advertising campaign. Surely the time and energy of EVERYONE commenting about BONDS could be put to better use?

Are you really that offended people?
Is it that important in your life to warrant a comment?
Do you desperately need to be heard by others that much?

*pauses to get swiped at*

Enjoy your day all.

they called them boobs so what get over it 🙂

Won’t somebody *please* think of the children!

At first I thought the print campaign was interesting, and cute. Being well into my thirties – I’m over buying cheap Bonds bras that last for a few washings and turn into a modern art piece – all cotton, elastic and metal. I guess this is for the young, fearless, women who are just coming to terms with the fact that they have boobs, they can dress them up any way they want, and have a laugh at themselves on their path to more austere foundation garments. This tone is a million miles away from the reverence society shows to people, touched and forever changed by breast cancer or cancer period. I see Bonds using the NCBF association to garner attention in the most base and topical of ways. There’s a charity in our communication. This means we care about you and our products are great. When you buy us, you’re doing something good. Yes, it is kind to donate money to this important foundation. The missing link is the campaign is all about shock and image and forgets to respect the people who don’t give a damn about boobs. Breast cancer doesn’t discriminate based on the brand of bra worn. And the challenge of life, death and uncertainty doesn’t seem to “jibe” with shocking and awing teeny-boppers with the word BOOBS on the side of a bus. A light-hearted campaign for a heart-breaking condition.

Sooooo Bonds are happy to support breast cancer, however they are happy to sell Bonds Mens undies for years and not give to prostate cancer research? Hypocrits…….

I can’t believe there are so many people annoyed at this ad.
Surely, there are many other problems that women, face daily, and get little help.
Not to mention a number of women in third world countries.
All big businesses make themselves out to be great guys being associated with this charity or that ad naseum .
Real charity is done where no one gets kudos and benefits from from it with free clothes, travel etc…. Anonomous Philanthropists.

This campaign is great – an awesome way to use billboards. As for the kids, by the time they are old enough to read the word BOOBS, they are spelling it on their calculators anyway.

Bonds has some of the most objectifying, gender stereotyped advertising out there..male and female. So this isn’t surprising coming from them…not even the bus ad with ‘wow’ next to a bonds bra (just another day in staving model land when size a boobs merit a wow on a bus). I’d really like to see BALLS on a billboard and a hunky undies campaign to level the field but I don’t think it’ll happen. Oh well…ladies we still got work to do.

Bonds get do ADs with boobs, with no problems.

But Target can’t use Bangers (UK nickname for boobs) because people are offended?

I figured many chicks wouldn’t like this seeing as it should be offensive but I guess bangers should be fine as well.

Good on yer Pac Brands. Very simple, very strong awareness campaign.

And if the word boob has become offensive then the political correctness brigade has won, unfortunately.

Imagine trying to get away with Antz Pantz or No Knickers today.