I was going to skip the Lane Bryant 'Banned' Lingerie commercial story since so many others had covered it so well (among them Lingerie Addict and Jezebel - found via A Slip of a Girl) but, since it seems so many people are still interested in a lingerie-related topic, my two cents, and my girlfriend's five cents (I'll submit her's as worth more than mine).
First off, some disclosure. Neither of us are what you could call 'plus-sized', so we can't come at it from the angle of knowing anything about any judgments thrown in our direction. But when we both saw this on TV, we looked at each other and said 'she's supposed to be too fat?' We also heard about it before seeing the commercial, and were expecting something of maybe questionable taste. Not how it struck us at all. The thing that sold (so to speak) the idea/product were, of course, the images, and the woman's voice-over read on the line 'somehow, I don't think this is what Mom had in mind'. That and the model's look back to the camera as she goes out the door are perfection.
Then, there's the Lane Bryant Vs. VS - Victoria's Secret argument. My girlfriend and I are both quite the fans of lingerie, and we like Vicky's ads. BUT, we both look at them the same way: as over-blown-commercials-on-steroids FUN. I can't find it to source it here, but I've read critiques of them saying they've become a parody of themselves over the years. We both say: calm down, don't get your knickers in a knot and enjoy them. But here's where my girlfriend makes what I think is the best point. Think of some of those Victoria's Secret scenarios. Now think of the Lane Bryant ad's plot. Guess which one is far more real world? Well, as real-world as a TV commercial is going to get. Far more likely your girlfriend/wife/lover is going to show up for a nooner in a trench coat and lingerie than three or more models in bras and panties will go walking down your street toward you as almost-gale force winds whip their hair and explosions go off around them (but bless you, Michael Bay). Did someone at the networks find the ad 'threatening' because it seemed more 'real'?
As far as the scheduling, is there really a controversy, or is Lane Bryant really just playing this for all it's worth? Maybe both. I really don't remember if ABC and FOX have run ads for Vicky's during Dancing with the Stars and American Idol, but it seems pretty simple: if they did, but they wont' run the Lane Bryant ad, they're being weasels. If they didn't run the VS ads, it's their networks; they can accept or reject the ads as they wish. And Lane Bryant can take them anywhere else.
Was there or was there not a big to do over the earliest VS commercials getting 'censored', too? (I don't consider it censorship if a network won't play something; I'll call it censorship when some government agency won't let them run it).
It is going to play April 28th in the last few minutes of Idol. What do you want to bet the extra tune-in will be?
Three more things to note. Before this, how many people had heard of Lane Bryant's Cacique Lingerie Line? (I hadn't - and Lane Bryant seemed to be just another store at the mall where people my age didn't shop). If they were looking for a game-changer, this did it. Second and most importantly, there's a gorgeous woman named Ashley Graham who's suddenly getting a lot of well-deserved attention.
from Madison Plus, photographed by Erick BasiloWhat's her take on all this? Check this post and video from NYC TV station WPIX on Stylist.
Oh, and finally? Dancing with the Stars not wanting lingerie seen during their show? Nah - couldn't be.