# Networks Censor Plus-Size Lingerie Ad



## MisticalMisty (Apr 21, 2010)

I'm not sure if you guys have seen this, but a few of us have been passing it around facebook.

http://jezebel.com/5520878/networks-censor-plus+size-lingerie-ad

Apparently, it's ok to show VS ads with half naked, thin models, but God forbid the fatties try to get in on that action.

*sigh*


----------



## Tad (Apr 21, 2010)

And now the video of the ad, and as far as I can tell the post on LB's curvage site, have been taken down, so far as I can tell. LB decided to back off on their complaint?


----------



## MisticalMisty (Apr 21, 2010)

I think youtube took the video down. I'm not certain..I don't think they've backed off with their complaint, and if so, they have some enraged fat girls taking over the fight!


----------



## BigCutieSasha (Apr 21, 2010)

I was so upset by this last night when I saw this. It made me so upset, angry, hurt. I saw the commercial before it was pulled from the net and it was fine! SO much bullshit. I ranted about this on facebook.

Our dear MsZwebs made and posted this on facebook and I thought I would post it here for all to use, post and enjoy! 

View attachment 25346_629988731063_69203131_36394378_4024730_n.jpg


----------



## Tad (Apr 21, 2010)

I was thinking about this, and I guess that the silver lining is that the networks have now officially agreed that BBW are flat out sexier than thin women. 

After all, if bigger women appearing in similar degrees of dress are clearly more provocative than are thin women, obviously they feel that the big women are sexier.


----------



## Nutty (Apr 21, 2010)

Aw man even the video was removed in Misty's link!


----------



## superodalisque (Apr 21, 2010)

we just have too much sexy for them.


----------



## Nutty (Apr 21, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> we just have too much sexy for them.



Shoot, can't rep you again until 24 hours


----------



## BigCutieSasha (Apr 21, 2010)

Someone put up another copy on youtube.


----------



## DitzyBrunette (Apr 21, 2010)

Nutty said:


> Aw man even the video was removed in Misty's link!



The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMxyZQfMmM4


----------



## mossystate (Apr 21, 2010)

It's not as if there were any offensive bellies. Thank DOG! This is an acceptable ' fat ' women.

I mean...sheesh. The woman had big breasts...isn't that what women are allowed to display in this asshole of a society? Maybe the woman shouldn't have been texting her nooner. Shame on her.


----------



## exile in thighville (Apr 21, 2010)

> Update: The spokeswoman tells us, "Lane Bryant realized there was a legal trademark issue which required them to change out the spot. In order to do this they needed to take the spot down prior to reposting the new version. This change has nothing to do with the content of the spots and the new version will be up shortly."
> 
> Second Update: The video is back up on the site. Just in case, we've grabbed it.



http://jezebel.com/5521074/plus+siz...nsorship-by-networks-updated?skyline=true&s=i


----------



## OhLaLaSoSexy (Apr 21, 2010)

what?!?! haha the commerical is harmless. The model looks amazing!


----------



## superodalisque (Apr 21, 2010)

mossystate said:


> It's not as if there were any offensive bellies. Thank DOG! This is an acceptable ' fat ' women.
> 
> I mean...sheesh. The woman had big breasts...isn't that what women are allowed to display in this asshole of a society? Maybe the woman shouldn't have been texting her nooner. Shame on her.



exactly! shame on her for being a *gulp* woman!

the day i see a belly openly celebrated on a regular network in a way that doesn't make all people involved look like freaks i'll feel like i did the day Obama won. i'm going to cry like a freakin baby.


----------



## superodalisque (Apr 21, 2010)

exile in thighville said:


> http://jezebel.com/5521074/plus+siz...nsorship-by-networks-updated?skyline=true&s=i



thank Goodness!


----------



## joswitch (Apr 21, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> we just have too much sexy for them.



I watched that video before it was pulled... The girl they had model was smokin'! And there was...smiling and jiggling and flashing of eyes! I think this just blew the network execs tiny minds... for all the groaning that there's too much sex(uality) on telly, mostly it's so neutered (or as they code it "tasteful") it leaves people cold...?

In case anyone missed it: (edit: oh it's posted again, 'scuse my redundancy)

The ad shows the hot girl happily getting ready to go meet "Dan" for lunch, in only skimpies and a coat (damned Exile gets all the luck)...

And I think it managed to push the following NetExec but, but, buttons:
Woman:
1) looks grrrreat and is not size zero!
2) feels awesome about her body!
3) and is about to go on a DATE!
3) where she will EAT! and she is happy about that too!
4) wants, and expects to get - and enjoy - actual SEX!!!!

I think this ad dinged pretty much every prop of the multi-million dollar hateyourself/misery/diet industry in what? 30secs?

i.e. maybe they hated it cos it didn't have enough profitable self-loathing, so it conflicted with the interests of all their other sponsors???


----------



## exile in thighville (Apr 21, 2010)

damn who's blowing up my cellie when i told a bitch no


----------



## Nutty (Apr 21, 2010)

That shouldn't have been banned! That was harmless!


----------



## spiritangel (Apr 21, 2010)

are you kidding???? She wasnt huge or anything just more curvy than the wafer thin model we are used to seeing, '

what a crock, although am betting it will get lane bryant a ton of free publicity 

in shock, totally I mean she diddnt even have a big belly or anything I think that is just a world gone crazy seriously


----------



## Nutty (Apr 21, 2010)

spiritangel said:


> are you kidding???? She wasnt huge or anything just more curvy than the wafer thin model we are used to seeing, '
> 
> what a crock, although am betting it will get lane bryant a ton of free publicity
> 
> in shock, totally I mean she diddnt even have a big belly or anything I think that is just a world gone crazy seriously



yeah my bad, i meant harmless like they weren't even fat.


----------



## CastingPearls (Apr 21, 2010)

Just posted the ad on my Facebook page and people are going nuts. 

I too saw the ad before it was pulled and even if she isn't as big as some FA's would prefer she's a helluva lot more representative of us than anyone else modeling lingerie on TV right now. As far as I'm concerned it's a start and I have been noticing bigger people on commercials now and not just in Diabetes and WLS ads.


----------



## t3h_n00b (Apr 21, 2010)

exile in thighville said:


> http://jezebel.com/5521074/plus+siz...nsorship-by-networks-updated?skyline=true&s=i



Hmmm, must have been the blackberry. That would actually make sense then.

As for the model, does "plus sized" mean normal sized? I was expecting a bbw.


----------



## mossystate (Apr 21, 2010)

CastingPearls said:


> ... even if she isn't as big as some FA's would prefer she's a helluva lot more representative of us than anyone else modeling lingerie on TV right now.



Oh yeah...I don't give a rats ass what any fa prefers when it comes to commercials pitching underthings to me. That is as ' fat ' ( big breasts and a smidge of hips/thighs ) as TV is ever gonna allow. It is all just something that makes one do this.......


----------



## CastingPearls (Apr 21, 2010)

t3h_n00b said:


> Hmmm, must have been the blackberry. That would actually make sense then.
> 
> As for the model, does "plus sized" mean normal sized? I was expecting a bbw.


In Hollyweird and TVLand a size 12-14 is considered plus-size. Actually, anyone above a size 2 is a suspected fattie.


----------



## Nutty (Apr 21, 2010)

CastingPearls said:


> In Hollyweird and TVLand a size 12-14 is considered plus-size. Actually, anyone above a size 2 is a suspected fattie.



Curse this rep system for not letting me rep you!!


----------



## joswitch (Apr 21, 2010)

t3h_n00b said:


> Hmmm, must have been the blackberry. That would actually make sense then.
> 
> As for the model, does "plus sized" mean normal sized? I was expecting a bbw.



yeah in "fashion world" plus size starts at size 12...apparently... 
I reckon the girl in the ad is maybe a size 14 or 16 at a push... 
but y'know she has that supercurvy soft look, her collarbones aren't sticking out, you can't see her ribs, she has boobs  and HIPS  and even the tiniest hint of a jiggle to her tummy... contrast with say Megan Fox or who the hell ever...


----------



## t3h_n00b (Apr 21, 2010)

joswitch said:


> yeah in "fashion world" plus size starts at size 12...apparently...
> I reckon the girl in the ad is maybe a size 14 or 16 at a push...
> but y'know she has that supercurvy soft look, her collarbones aren't sticking out, you can't see her ribs, she has boobs  and HIPS  and even the tiniest hint of a jiggle to her tummy... contrast with say Megan Fox or who the hell ever...



Color me surprised but I've never heard a group of guys going "holy crap her collar bones are huge! She's so hot. I could do my frikkin laundry on her ribs."

who the hell picks the official beauty traits? I don't even think "regular guys" have a say in it.


----------



## Mack27 (Apr 22, 2010)

I heard about this on the radio today, apparently Fox relented and will show the ad. Here's another article:

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/04/lane_bryant_says_abc_and_fox_d.html


----------



## wrestlingguy (Apr 22, 2010)

So, let me ask this. Would you be as angry at Lane Bryant as you are at the networks if you found out that this was a carefully crafted plan for the clothing chain to get some free publicity during a time of store closings and dwindling profits?

Apparently at least one person outside of the networks thinks so. Here's a link to their article:
http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/22/lane-bryant-vs-fox-and-abc-publicity-stunt/

Here's the part that I found most interesting:


> The controversy over an ad that hasn't even aired yet certainly seems an effective (and inexpensive) way for Lane Bryant to make a splash in a national TV ad market that it's only barely dipped its toes into for the last couple of years, during a recession in which many companies drastically cut back on their ad budgets. A report from media research firm Kantar Media shows that the clothing chain bought $1.13 million worth of TV time in 2008 but only $1,000 last year. Now, its re-entry into the TV marketplace is getting all sorts of free publicity.


----------



## mszwebs (Apr 22, 2010)

wrestlingguy said:


> So, let me ask this. Would you be as angry at Lane Bryant as you are at the networks if you found out that this was a carefully crafted plan for the clothing chain to get some free publicity during a time of store closings and dwindling profits?
> 
> Apparently at least one person outside of the networks thinks so. Here's a link to their article:
> http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/22/lane-bryant-vs-fox-and-abc-publicity-stunt/
> ...



OK, yeah... but do you HONESTLY think that ABC is going to get up there and be like:

_Yes. We chose not to run this ad because we don't want to show plus sized women in this format._




I'm not going to sit here and say that it doesn't make fantastic publicity either way, because it does. But there really is NO other way for Fox or ABC to come off as anything other than assholes without placing blame on LB and calling it a stunt.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Apr 23, 2010)

mszwebs said:


> OK, yeah... but do you HONESTLY think that ABC is going to get up there and be like:
> 
> _Yes. We chose not to run this ad because we don't want to show plus sized women in this format._
> 
> ...



Unless the network accusation is true. There are a couple of things to consider here.

First, advertising revenues are down in ALL the networks. While I can't speak for them, logic would dictate that they wouldn't turn down advertising, unless it was blatantly offensive. Right now, it's ABC's word against Lane Bryant.

Second, the article stated that Lane Bryant spent almost no money on TV advertising in 2009, because of economic conditions, and declining revenues.
From the article:



> The controversy over an ad that hasn't even aired yet certainly seems an effective (and inexpensive) way for Lane Bryant to make a splash in a national TV ad market that it's only barely dipped its toes into for the last couple of years, during a recession in which many companies drastically cut back on their ad budgets. A report from media research firm Kantar Media shows that the clothing chain bought $1.13 million worth of TV time in 2008 but only $1,000 last year. Now, its re-entry into the TV marketplace is getting all sorts of free publicity.



So it would make sense to LB to take advantage of some "controversy" in an effort to get more bang for the buck.

I'm not saying this is all true, just saying that it isn't out of the realm of possibility.


----------



## Tracyarts (Apr 23, 2010)

My husband and I saw the video and both of us think the whole "getting sexed up for a nooner" theme was pretty tacky.

Absolutely stunning model, beautiful lingerie, high-quality production value. But the "story" the commercial told left a lot to be desired.

We just think they could have done a classier job with it.

Tracy


----------



## joswitch (Apr 23, 2010)

wrestlingguy said:


> So, let me ask this. Would you be as angry at Lane Bryant as you are at the networks if you found out that this was a carefully crafted plan for the clothing chain to get some free publicity during a time of store closings and dwindling profits?
> 
> Apparently at least one person outside of the networks thinks so. Here's a link to their article:
> http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/22/lane-bryant-vs-fox-and-abc-publicity-stunt/
> ...



Nah, I wouldn't be angry - if it hadn't been for all this smoke and noise I'd've never known to watch this ad... which is hott!


----------



## joswitch (Apr 23, 2010)

Tracyarts said:


> My husband and I saw the video and both of us think the whole "getting sexed up for a nooner" theme was pretty tacky.
> 
> Absolutely stunning model, beautiful lingerie, high-quality production value. But the "story" the commercial told left a lot to be desired.
> 
> ...



Psssch - how is Afternoon Delight not classy?!


----------



## mszwebs (Apr 23, 2010)

wrestlingguy said:


> Unless the network accusation is true. There are a couple of things to consider here.
> 
> First, advertising revenues are down in ALL the networks. While I can't speak for them, logic would dictate that they wouldn't turn down advertising, unless it was blatantly offensive. Right now, it's ABC's word against Lane Bryant.
> 
> ...



lol and I'm not disagreeing that it couldn't be true.

You raise the point that LB spent very little money on advertising in 2009...LB has not exactly been overwhelming my television screen...ever. And I think part of that is the whole "forgotten woman" attitude that prevails about fat women as anything other than lumps on logs. 

The last 2 years have been AMAZING for plus sized women in the media, even though it might not look that way. "Regular" Fashion magazines have plus-sized fatshionistas on staff (though the advice is still tending to be how to look skinnier), Glamour magazine runs articles and spreads with larger models. Chunky/fat women have had much more screen time than ever before.

That wasn't really happening 2 years ago, when LB was not spending money it didn't have to not advertise to customers who may have reacted differently at that point to this ad in particular.


Like I said, Phil. I'm not saying it was or wasn't a stunt. In fact, it probably didn't start out that way, but it may have turned into one at the first network asked for whatever revision, for whatever reason. LB and ABC have their stories...the real version is probably a cross between the two.

The ad isn't that over the top, -as stated above, maybe could have been classier - but there was clearly SOME kind of pushback from the networks or its highly doubtful that this conversation would even be happening. And it could very well be that the it was a content objection rather than an objection to who was pictured in the ad. 

Unfortunately in this instance, there is absolutely no way of separating those ideas from one another. Any way you look at it, it's still a fat woman in her underwear, getting ready for a nooner.


----------



## butch (Apr 24, 2010)

Hmm, LB was much more high profile back when they had Mia Tyler and Anna Nicole Smith as models in TV commercials (and if I recall, at one point Queen Latifah was repping LB, wasn't she?), and Emme had her TV show on E!, so I don't know that I buy that the past two years have been the apex for fat women in fashion media. I remember seeing those things a lot on TV, and it was in a world before the extreme levels of 'obesity epidemic will destroy the globe' rhetoric we hear today. However, those LB commericals might have been airing during the era when they were owned by The Limited, and had access to more cash to spend on advertising.


----------



## BBW MeganLynn44DD (Apr 24, 2010)

I did see it on Lane Bryant's website and I thought it was nothing at all.Very well done.We have the *lingerie Bowl during the Super Bowl,Victoria's secret shows on t.v. all the time...what gives?Who took it off!?!?!
*


----------



## Tooz (Apr 24, 2010)

Tracyarts said:


> My husband and I saw the video and both of us think the whole "getting sexed up for a nooner" theme was pretty tacky.
> 
> Absolutely stunning model, beautiful lingerie, high-quality production value. But the "story" the commercial told left a lot to be desired.
> 
> ...



I personally like it-- it's about goddamn time we showed a curvier woman in an overtly sexual situation.


----------



## kayrae (Apr 24, 2010)

Saw the ad. Didn't see a big deal. It's pretty tame. Made me smirk... I mean why put up a fuss for that? I didn't think the ad was unclassy at all.


----------



## mszwebs (Apr 24, 2010)

butch said:


> Hmm, LB was much more high profile back when they had Mia Tyler and Anna Nicole Smith as models in TV commercials (and if I recall, at one point Queen Latifah was repping LB, wasn't she?), and Emme had her TV show on E!, so I don't know that I buy that the past two years have been the apex for fat women in fashion media. I remember seeing those things a lot on TV, and it was in a world before the extreme levels of 'obesity epidemic will destroy the globe' rhetoric we hear today. However, those LB commericals might have been airing during the era when they were owned by The Limited, and had access to more cash to spend on advertising.



Here in this market, we got nuthin. I know the ads existed, because I would see them when I would go INTO LB... they would show them in-store. But here in my neck of the woods, they didn't show. And I'm old enough to remember seeing them. 

And I never said that the last 2 years were the apex. I said that the last 2 years have been amazing. Saying that they were the apex implies that there is no higher we can go and it's all down hill from here.

But yes. Bigger advertising budget does seem reasonable when they were with The Limited.



I don't know if this article was linked, but (Under latest buzz on the right side,) Lane Bryant Responds To ABC’s Censorship Comments


----------



## mszwebs (Apr 24, 2010)

Just as a side note... See if you notice anything different about this version


CNN "Accidentally" airs the wrong version of the commercial.


----------



## Davastav (Apr 25, 2010)

Barring whether or not LB ad revenues are down or not the story does show the hypocrisy of mainstream media and what kind of female bodies are typically shown on tv..

Here is the opinion of the stunning Ashley Graham herself..Hopefully we will get to see alot more of this beautiful young woman..


http://gothamist.com/2010/04/24/lane_bryant_model_sad_we_cant_see_b.php


----------



## Rosie (Apr 25, 2010)

There's another video of it on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvdU2xpgvdk

or on the Lane Bryant website:

http://www.lanebryant.com/content.jsp?pageName=RTWsweeps&intid=LB040410x0001


The woman in the ad isn't anywhere near fat. I have no idea why they didn't allow it, but it's their right to reject ads for whatever reason they choose. Of course, people also have the right to protest and to boycott if they choose. I rarely watch either network anyway.

Edited to add the Lane Bryant site link.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 26, 2010)

wrestlingguy said:


> Unless the network accusation is true. There are a couple of things to consider here.
> 
> First, advertising revenues are down in ALL the networks. While I can't speak for them, logic would dictate that they wouldn't turn down advertising, unless it was blatantly offensive. Right now, it's ABC's word against Lane Bryant.
> 
> ...



i don't see what the big deal is. It makes sense that they'd use the idea of "generating controversy" to get publicity. It would seem likely that that additional play it got from news stories about the ad or links to youtube from discussion boards would simply mean more exposure for Lane Bryant. Even if it was planned, so what? They're entitled to use any whatever means they want to ensure customers see their ads, and in such a terrible economy, why not look for ideas that won't cost more money?


----------



## SuperSizedAngie (Apr 26, 2010)

That's awful!! She's so pretty; I can't believe that Fox and ABC would say that the commercial was any more inappropriate than VS or the outfits on Dancing with the Stars!!


----------



## S13Drifter (Apr 29, 2010)

Marketing at its best. aka pushing the envelope


----------

