If they were criticizing the use of women’s bodies in ads, they wouldn't have included the snarky text, they would have just used the image and let it speak for itself. As I interpret it, they are taking a lowbrow shot at people who think women's bodies are exploited in advertising.

I don't know if having no text would be better. For the first one, the take-away message might be "why's there that random cross-dressing mostly naked dude? That company's weird" which would be ineffective as any kind of critique of the industry. Having the text at least makes the issue explicit, no matter which side of it they're on...

I think if it had NOT been meant in a ridiculing way, perhaps they would not have included an objectified male's body either.

I suspect them of trying to split the difference and court both sides.

I think they've got a very very smart advertising-market genius, cause it has totally perfect sense to me that they exactly know how to catch the double-game and attract both sides of audience. Now this can be viewed like a thumbs up for them, but it can turn pretty sad in such a sad world where the most of women's (and human) bodies are really exploited.
(Sorry for my english, i'm from Italy) :)
Thanks for the stumble

Betty I'm more on your side of the court. These are intelligent ads with a fem-conscious marketing staff behind them. Of course they are both poking fun at the exploitation of women's bodies and appealing to those who rally against such exploitation. Betty you got it when you said they know how to play the double game. I think the cross-dressing man sends the strongest message, although I disagree with the exploiting of men's bodies just as much as I do with women's (a little part of me rejoices as just desserts though, I'll have to admit). The ostrich is by far the most liberal of the two.

I find it difficult to try to pin point the motivation behind a company that I know nothing about. I think they're just focusing on what sells, and ads are meant to stick out in your mind. So mission accomplished, I would probably remember this ad. I think dependant on where you are at is what you'll see when you look at these. If you're on the defense all the time towards marketing you'll see this as an attack. If you're looking for bright sides you'll see this as a motion forward.

When I look at the first ad, I thought to myself how great it is to see a man being feminine. I think men are suppressed just as much as women are exploited and they're both sad. My husband was severly emotionally cut off, and tried so hard to refrain from doing anything remotely feminine because he feels like he has to live under this turbo-masculine ideal. So its really nice to see ads like to first one.

The second one, I just thought was a little goofy. Onward to Ostrich fashion shows! I'd go.

hey!
it works!
free circulation on stumble!
thumbs down.

Leaving us confused means we think about the ad longer...

I'm pretty sure the message is "Fine social watchdogs, have it your way. We won't use women in our advertising. The shoes still look damn good."

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to be facetious here. I actually think that's the message.

I think, as Betty put it so well, they they are trying to play the court from both sides, to point out the exploitation and make a jab-- I mean, they'd win either way. The non-obvious thing about the emu, though, is that it can be taken as a jab at PETA, too. "Aucun corps de femme n'a été exploité dans cette publicité," but the bodies of an animal and of a man were. The emu, interestingly, is not sexualized the way the man is-- I recall oddly sexualized anthropomorphic horses and dogs being sold as toys for young girls (some posts back), so I don't think it's as strange a thing to notice as it might appear at first thought.

Seriously, don't worry about it. Its the oldest trick in the book - they're just trying to stretch a small advertising budget further by trying to stir up a bit of controversy. You can easily tell by how unclear which side of the fence it is that they sit. That way they get the best of both worlds - the free advertising in the media and on forums such as this and an easy way to backpedal out of it should people really get offended. They're not even being that clever, so how about we don't give them another seconds airspace...?

No matter how cheap or limited their budget may have been, the underlying concept is an artistic statement ( the company's intentions are irreverent )

Art is measured by the reaction it produces, and these ads (even though they are by no means louvre worthy) made me think about something bigger than shoes.

Incidentally, the ostrich is also male.

This may be reading too much into it, but I suspect - like most shoes, sadly - the bodies of both women & men were exploited in producing the footwear show on each image ...

It's funny, I think is was the main point in this campaign. Don't take it so serious.

I think what this means is that if we aren't expoiting women, we have to exploit something else, and if not that, then something else. Society is sad. Visit my website for the new world order solution.

over-analyzing... all of you, no exceptions.

they would rather concentrate on what the ad is about than trying to create a different impression with it...may be they just wanted to be innovative...

on a late response to Po Cassidy "The ostrich is by far the most liberal of the two" - it probably is the less considering those shoes probably ARE made of other members of the same species and animals are far more repressed than women or men have ever been.
I do agree with Betty that it is a clever marketing campaign as it makes feminism seem ridicule and pretends women exploitation in ads is a thing to not be worried about - and at the same time is jokes "see, men can sell shoes too!" - yeah but the whole point is that no-one should be objectified to sell whatever the hell they're selling this time.. men or women (and yes, I'm guessing we all admit we like looking at either one or the other naked - that's exactly why they use naked/semi-naked/erotic images - but that still doesn't make it right).
Personally I find it wrong to use men, women or animals to sell shoes or whatever else they want us to wear... there re so many amazing, creative, genius campaigns/ads that don't need to resort to a no-brainer such as sexually-filled images and still manage to not offend anyone... why not put that degree to use? x

The ad of the naked man with just shoes on is moking and answering to previous ad by Le Coq Sportif, with the same shot but with a woman.

I don't see a jab at women in this ad, but at people who say that women who take off their clothes to sell shoes are exploiting women are ridiculous. If it makes you remember an Ad, whats the problem? They're fucking shoes. The guys want them sold, and they look great on this guy, and the boots well, I wouldn't buy them lol... I think people need to step back and realize an ad is an ad... want to be a feminist, empower women monetarily and make sure they are more involved in this Age Of Reason. Screw the pasts definitions and deifications of stereotypes of overlord advertisers. If you don't remember the ad, why would you go into their stores?

it´s good. But I still think of the bodies in that kind of shoes...