This photo was taken on December 3, 2007 using a Canon PowerShot SD600.
This photo belongs to
License
Privacy
-
This photo is visible to everyone
keyboard shortcuts:
← previous photo
→ next photo
L view in light box
F favorite
< scroll film strip left
> scroll film strip right
? show all shortcuts
-
Photo license:
Some rights reserved
Comments and faves
tenglish (54 months ago | reply)
you're right on target
Whisky Rocks added this photo to his favorites. (54 months ago)
Copy Hack (54 months ago | reply)
If they're "targeting" what men want, then they've "scored" a bullseye. Nailed it, you might say...
(Any more "quote marks" and this will start to "look" like a Greek coffee-shop menu in NYC advertising its "specials" ...)
stantont added this photo to his favorites. (54 months ago)
DESTROY & REBUILD (54 months ago | reply)
ill take a cheap 10 points and just go for the mouth
thefines (53 months ago | reply)
yeah, this is terrible.
Tony Webster and Gemini Ace added this photo to their favorites.
jen473 (53 months ago | reply)
oh c'mon people get your mind out of the gutter, she is making snow angles.
DESTROY & REBUILD (53 months ago | reply)
nah she about to pop a little bastard out
almassengale (53 months ago | reply)
She is in full snow gear making a snow angle. Not that bad.
doncumm (53 months ago | reply)
Bull's eye!
hogboy66 (53 months ago | reply)
geez it really takes all kinds of people to think that . she isn't even in a swim suit she is fully dressed people need to lighten up
how old is she 12 so what does that say about the people looking at it that way
DESTROY & REBUILD (53 months ago | reply)
shes obviously a woman but 12 sounds awesome
beverlee1978 (53 months ago | reply)
Jesus, are u kidding me? U are offended by this... yes, YOU!?!
the girl is playing around, having fun ! she's not in lingerie or booty shorts or anything. you can see females with less clothes walking down the red carpet! OMFG! you are totally missing the purpose of this ad.. and if you still cant get it.. then u have issues!
quit disecting everything. just take it for what is is....
-comments... bring it. beverlee1978@yahoo.com
jen473 (53 months ago | reply)
Thank you Beverlee, my thoughts exactly!
frenchconnector (53 months ago | reply)
Yeah, with the target pointing at the crotch, it's hard to think of innocent snow angels :)
gadget_2940 (53 months ago | reply)
Oh my lord-Come on people! My mind is in the gutter half of the time and viewing this to be an "offensive" billboard is a BIG stretch! It takes some really OUT THERE imaginations to think this is offensive! NOT HARDLY!!! Get a grip people--and YES...I'm a mother too-and I STILL don't find this offensive-so don't even TRY to play THAT card!
beverlee1978 (53 months ago | reply)
U tell em' gadget! :)
& who is this Lisa Ray, chick (from Mpls) who is trying to brain wash people into thinking this is "offensive"??? she states she's a mother of 2...blah-blah-blah...target is sexist. . . blah-blah-blah! whatever woman!
she's probably the FREEKY-DEEKEYIST broad out there! Hiding herself behind the curtain of P.E.M.
gadget_2940 (53 months ago | reply)
The "Smiling Bob" ads have a LOT more suggestive content than this ad...and I still don't think they are "OFFENSIVE" at all...I think they are clever-and they catch your attention-this billboard is SO not even close to a "Chubby Santa" from smiling bob! If this Lisa lady who is SO offended that she'll "never shop" Target again--what if her husband suddenly experiences ED...are you telling me she'd not let her husband use Enzyte because these ads could be construed as offensive? PLEASE!! She'd be on that like stink on a monkey!!! (and I mean the ENZYTE--get your minds out of the gutter!!) lol
gadget_2940 (53 months ago | reply)
Thanks beverlee! I'm from MSP too--and I always thought we weren't that conservative up here--WHO KNEW some of these people still exist? TIME TO MOVE INTO THE 21st Century!!
YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! (53 months ago | reply)
Question: if there is a billboard with a picture of an apple are you going to over think that also and say it is too suggestive? Seriously...you most have too much time on your hand. That billboard is innocent and fun! what is sad is that it you people are so retarded and annoyed me enough to waste my time...get over it!
k_rivera (53 months ago | reply)
Snow angels made without... snow. Huh.
audiovideodisco and agahran added this photo to their favorites.
agahran (53 months ago | reply)
Thanks for making this great photo available via CC license. I just used it to illustrate this post
poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=136013
- Amy Gahran
blowout (53 months ago | reply)
wow. she's wearing snow gear, and is obviously making snow angels. maybe she's on a bullseye because gee, i dunno, that's target's LOGO?
beverlee1978 (53 months ago | reply)
good call Blowout...
**** A ? to all those offended: So what would the difference be if
[ she ] were doing a GAP ad... and she was standing like this, posing as the letter "A" or something. ? (still wearing the same outfit) would that still be offensive? the only difference would be that the bullseye wouldnt be behind her...
Wow, i cant believe how totally naive some people can be. boy are they in for a rude awakening ! hahaha!
richiec added this photo to their favorites. (53 months ago)
ontarioemperor (53 months ago | reply)
An interesting wrinkle to this that goes beyond the offensive ad issue. When blogger Amy Jussel contacted Target regarding the ad, Target sent the following reply:
“Good Morning Amy,
"Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.
"Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.”
Way to go, Target. Now the feminists AND the bloggers are out to get you.
Drew Olanoff added this photo to his favorites. (53 months ago)
k_rivera (53 months ago | reply)
I'm not necessarily completely offended by the image - though I do think it quite unsubtle - but I'll answer your question, beverlee, despite the rudeness you've chosen to bring to the comments.
Your scenario cannot be compared to this one for at least three reasons. One, the woman in the ad above is decidedly not standing, she is lying flat on her back, palms up, arms and legs spread. This is not at all the same thing as being in a strong, standing position forming a letter 'A'.
Two, camera angle plays a part here, but you don't describe how the standing person would be shot. I don't want to assume anything, and you don't have photos available for me to view here, but if you are a photographer on flickr, I would be surprised if you didn't know a thing or two about perspective, lines and angles. But maybe you don't. If a standing woman were photographed the way this one has been? It might be on par... but we'd have to actually see the finished product to know.
And, three, you take the most problematic part of the image out of your scenario... the bullseye. The target alone is not at issue, clearly there are other photos in this campaign that include the target that are not offensive. A standing woman with no target behind her is a very different image from that of a woman on her back, splayed across a target with her crotch in the bullseye. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
Stephen Downes (53 months ago | reply)
I think the point to be made here is that the image was deliberately crafted by Target, and that this was the image they decided to craft. It's not so much a matter of being offended as it is wondering just what it is that goes through the Target media people when they design their ads.
As for the bloggers, well, it's worth noting that traditional mainstream media almost never discusses objectification of women as a means to move merchandise - as though they have some sort of take in it or something.
SvenskBulgarisk (53 months ago | reply)
OK, honestly, DCR1970, What is that is mostly bothering you? The Bull's eye, the crotch in the middle of it, The targeting?
Have you tried thinking it in a different perspective?
The woman lying flat on her back and all the rest, yeah, so what? Whay would that be offensive? Why would have any sexual or sexist thoughts more than the same woman in an A pose, or for instance any bathing-suits add? Why wouldn't anyone said that Baywatch and Pamela Anderson were offensive ?
Second, the photo composition. As being specialist....or at least sounding as one, tell me would it be a good shot if the woman was not in middle of the Bulleye, but somewhere else, would you know this is a Target ad? And Target are targeting women...
As for the third, the target, I think I already commented on that one.
And as already being asked....why not start taking things for what they are. I mean why do we have to look for stuff that are not there? Offensive..yeah, sure, fine, it could be offensive if you want to be offended, becuase this is choice as well. We choose if we are going to feel offended by something, or not.
P.S. I wonder if you'd still be offended if it was a man instead of a woman..?
k_rivera (53 months ago | reply)
@SvenskBulgarisk - read my comment again. I said I am not completely offended by it, but I do find it unsubtle.
However, just because I may not be offended or because you don't see the same imagery, that does not mean the imagery is not there. Target has managed to come up with many, MANY advertising campaigns that don't involve splaying a woman on a target with her crotch in the middle. I imagine any one of those might be quite acceptable as replacements and we'd all know that it's a Target ad.
As for taking things for what they are... yes, it's a target. With a woman lying spread-eagle on it. I am taking it exactly as presented. So, maybe you should ask yourself that question.
p.s. I repeat, I am not comletely offended, but yes, I would find the same image, replaced with a man, to be as equally wrong-headed. Nice try, though.
sandra.connor36 (53 months ago | reply)
This photo is offensive because her crotch is in the center of the bulls-eye. If they had shifted her a few inches so that her belly button was in the center of the bulls-eye, then the ad would not be offensive and people could claim she was just making "snow angels." Also, as someone who spent years in the field of advertising, I can tell that this ad was meant to be sexual in nature - if they had really wanted to work the snow angel angle, they could have easily constructed a target out of snow (using red coloring for the red bits) and put her in that. They didn't - they wanted the meaning to be instantly apparent and the snow angel part to be hinted at so they could have an excuse and a means to call people who protested it "dirty minded."
As for camera angles - this ad was designed as a billboard ad. That means that all people looking at it would be looking from the perspective of the camera angle. This was also thought out ahead of time. But even if I saw it flat, such as in a newspaper, I would still be offended. Women's sexuality is constantly used to market things (such as beer, cars, motorcycles, and such) so why are people so surprised that it's being used to market crappy plastic things? If you don't find the ad offensive, that's fine - but I do, and I'm entitled to my opinion too. So stop being rude, people. Learn to accept other points of view.
SvenskBulgarisk (53 months ago | reply)
OK, so just to sum up, CDR1970, Sandra.Conner, both of you are arguing that this picture is sexist, and more or less appalling, right?
Well, I have a question. Why are trying to pull back the feministic wave? I mean the arguments that you are bringing could be 100 % if we lived in the times of the first wave feminism.
Women have been fighting to be free to do whatever they want, right? They are equal now. This girl knwe the conception of the add, yet she did it...why?
Sure, the target points at her vagina, ok, is there a more profound yonic symbol than that? Oh, and a final question....the discussion about al this will lead to what exactly?
Bennett 4 Senate (53 months ago | reply)
flame wars, woooooo!
I think I'm with Stephen Downes on this one.
BLOGOSPHERE, GO!!!!
jen473 (53 months ago | reply)
I think what this all really boils down to, for me at least ,is that you people that find this offensive and are throwing a fit and demanding that this ad be removed are taking away the choice of those that don't find it offensive to view it or not. If you don't like it, fine then, don't look at it and go on about your life and leave the rest of us to decide on our own if its something that we want to look at or not. People like Lisa Ray and Amy Jussell that need to step in and control what the world is exposed to need to place their noses back on their faces where they belong and quit using their children ( "Parents" for Ethical Marketing ) as an excuse to be prudes.
k_rivera (53 months ago | reply)
Well, jen473, since no one is asking for the removal of the ad here in Bennett's comment thread -- indeed, we are all here choosing to view a photo of the billboard in question-- perhaps your complaint would be better heard in the places where they ARE (in your words) "throwing a fit and demanding" that it be removed.
Let us know how it goes!
jen473 (53 months ago | reply)
Yeah, I wasn't talking about Bennet's stream but, hey, thanks for making assumptions.
jwotis (53 months ago | reply)
Bennett 4 Senate, I think YOU are the problem here. Your picture shows a sign above the billboard that starts with a "Va" and then later, there's a "g". How suggestive. What hypocrisy. You probably just included it so you would get more page views.
Clever billboard by Target's ad agency- maybe a touch too obvious, though. You really don't want people to notice those things, it's better if it passes beneath the threshold of conscious perception.
jen473 (53 months ago | reply)
LOL jahfool, good catch on the Van Wagner sign above the offensive wench!
k_rivera (53 months ago | reply)
No assumptions made at all, merely suggesting that your complaint would be better heard if made to the people whose actions you have a problem with. *shrug*
jen473 (53 months ago | reply)
"your complaint would be better heard if made to the people whose actions you have a problem with"
CDR,
Bennett says he took this pic in Times Square.
Lisa Ray lives in Minnesota.
Amy Jussell lives in California.
So, hmmm, where could they have possibly seen this billboard???
Oh, thats right, Amy found it right here in Bennetts photo stream.
k_rivera (53 months ago | reply)
Sorry, jen473, that doesn't make much sense. This photo has been ALL OVER THE PLACE. Those prudish nosy-parkers you have a problem with who are e-mailing and calling Target are finding this photo all over the blogosphere. If your problem is with the actions of those people, then hey, here's a thought, go tell *them*. No one talking here has said they are doing that.
That was my only point.
Besides, you said you weren't talking about Bennett's stream.
k_rivera (53 months ago | reply)
Bennett, sorry to have taken up your comments with this ridiculous argument. I won't comment any further! :-)
Bennett 4 Senate (53 months ago | reply)
don't worry about it, I think its pretty hilarious.
jen473 (53 months ago | reply)
CDR,
Amy SAYS on her website that this is where she found it. Maybe you should know what you are talking about before inserting your foot in your mouth.
RobertSyrett and arielwaldman added this photo to their favorites.
sepiasmile (53 months ago | reply)
LMAO... i now love this photo. i didn't see it until it was brought to my attention by the blog-gossip.
i had to put my two cents in on it but then again, i embrace my inner pervert.
beverlee1978 (53 months ago | reply)
*** but I'll answer your question, beverlee, despite the rudeness you've chosen to bring to the comments.***
omg CDR, what rudeness are you talking about?
nothing rude about asking a question? that aint rude... this is...
" QUIT BEING A LITTLE BITCH AND GO MAKE A SNOW ANGEL! "
ontarioemperor (53 months ago | reply)
The latest update:
1. There are pictures of this particular ad being taken down from Times Square, while all of the other Target ads remain in place. Perhaps the others were removed a few minutes later, but it is interesting that this one ad was removed with no explanation.
2. Amy VonWalter said that Target was re-examining its policies regarding which media they will deal with, and which they will not. To date, the results of this re-examination have not been released.
3. To date, I have been unable to locate any pictures of Robert Ulrich playing snow angel.
sidhe-unseelie (52 months ago | reply)
this is disgusting..
i'm very pro-sex but i'm very ANTI marketing that distorts self image - this is CLASSIC "HI BULLSEYE ON THE C(_)NT THANKS!"
nice one, Target. guess what, though you are on my commute home, no more dollars from me for you.
www.seo-writer.com (52 months ago | reply)
First, she certainly does not look 12. She looks more like 20. Second, if she had been wearing a short skirt, I would have raised my eyevrows, but she's wearing full winter clothes and the bull's eye is not even suggestively peeking out. It is invisible. I agree with the lighten up comment.
jen473 (51 months ago | reply)
Wow Bennett, almost 15,000 views, you are one popular photographer!!
llcooljessie (48 months ago | reply)
Wait, maybe it's a nod to DaVinci's Vitruvian Man... just throwing it out there.
jwotis (48 months ago | reply)
Sure, Target is simultaneously marketing to the low-brow and the high-brow audience. Of course, us americans might also consider theVitruvian Man obscene, if it was put up on a billboard in Times Square.
trader46311 added this photo to their favorites. (48 months ago)
edithgingles21 (43 months ago | reply)
hey you know people are really starting to make a big deal about adds these days. I think people need to lighten up. I mean if this was walmart or something else it wouldn't even be an issue. Just because their logo is a Bullseye it is a big deal. Grow up people.
tenglish (43 months ago | reply)
ok, so i just took it upon myself (since none of you blogtwats were going to) to have a wank to this picture. thanks to bennett's upload i was able to jizz over AT LEAST 91.4% of the original picture. take note that i jizzed directly upon my computer screen so that i was able to measure the genuine area of which i had jizzed. it seems to me (if i calculated correctly) that i was able to send my jizz past 24.3% of the comments posted here within 3 minutes by holding the 'down arrow' continuously. i should think that together this evidence suggests that the source material was intended to be 'sexy' and the after comments completely 'unsexy'.
i also calculated that i don't give a shit about any of you guys because you'll never come within 3 feet of my toothbrush in the next 100 years.
donbull01 added this photo to his favorites. (25 months ago)