cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1891139
Archived version: https://archive.ph/OvFse
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825144949/https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/08/23/billboards-featuring-onlyfans-model-ruled-not-overtly-sexual-by-uk-advertising-watchdog
I’ve seen worse ads about perfume
Remember jeans ads from the 90s? Jeans were all they had on!
In the 2000s women were straight up having orgasms in shampoo commercials.
Removed by mod
Good times
They don’t make shampoo the way they used to :-(
Those were the days, B&W pictures of coked-up anorexic Calvin Klein jeans models shot topless from the back with maybe a bit of sideboob depending on where they put their arm.
That’s tame. Mark Whalburg was a underwear model.
*broken jeans
GUESS!
On one hand, I find nothing wrong with the photograph.
On the other hand, I’m sick of fucking OnlyFans spam online, it’s disgusting to see more spam in real life.
Also billboards as a whole can get fucked.
I don’t see how it’s worse than other kinds of advertisment. We are spammed by ads everywhere. What difference does it make whether it’s an OnlyFans or a car you will never buy?
Removed by mod
Netflix has zero skill anymore. They rely completely on sex and controversy to sell shows now. Gone are the days of sell a show based on a good story.
It’s no different than seeing a Victoria’s Secret or Calvin Klein billboard, IMHO.
Removed by mod
People are just mad that women have a new and effective way to monetize their inherent value (edit as a human, in a way that men can’t compete as well with). they are mad because they either have moral objections, or want to deny said intrinsic value. Its a sad effect of people not loving themselves. Its also hilariously transparent when people get mad about things like this.
‘inherent value’?
Don’t be gross
to be clear i mean inherent value as a human. Men’s inherent value isn’t questioned, so i didn’t mention it. I can see how you would think that how i meant it, and I’ll see about editing the comment so it doesn’t read that way.
She’s advertising her ability to titillate, not her personality or intrinsic value and self-worth. Even with your edit, you’re still equating the persona she adopts for her business with her value as a person.
The ability to titillate IS an intrinsic value, a human one at that. You’re probably just sour that you don’t feel you have that ability, so you want to deny the existence and power of the ability to titilate on a human value basis.
Projecting much?
I don’t have any personal desire to do any sex work. But women who are less conventionally attractive or who don’t feel confident on camera are not any less valuable than those who do. You’re equating a woman’s value as a human to her sex appeal and that’s disgusting.
I’m ignorant about what content OnlyFans has. Is the woman on the billboard a porn star?
OnlyFans is generally a porn distribution platform, yes. It was created with wider intent, but was taken over by amateur porn makers. You basically sign up for free, then you subscribe to people you wanna jerk off to or whatever. some accounts are free, some are paid, most offer paid content on the side, like custom requests or old videos. I help one of my friends make content for her OF account here and there; I’m happy to answer questions you have about it.
I don’t really have questions about OF beyond getting context for the billboard. In the US I don’t see porn stars advertising in such everyday places. I have certainly seen billboards that are similar to the one shown in this article, but those are from companies with a big advertising budget like Victoria’s Secret, as you mention. I think porn stars are generally not wealthy enough to have a big advertising budget for billboards.
Average OF model makes less than $200 per month so I agree. (average model’s subscribers = 21, Average monthly rate = $7.20, OnlyFans keeps 20% profits).
However, when you look at where you CAN get to, the investment could be considered worthwhile, if you think it will increase subscriber count.
Someone in the top 1% of OF models (on income basis) can make over $6K per month
Someone in the top 0.1% makes over $100K per month (but thats like… literally Cardi B, Mia Khalifia, etc so good luck)
Billboards in the cheaper ranges are $2K -$6K, but can go to $20K/month in dense urban areas.
Is it a good or a bad thing when you’re told your onlyfans ad can stay because it’s not sexy enough?
Not only did the billboard work, but now that news outlets are posting it, with her @ and all, she’s likely getting so much more attention/subs.
Genius.
Yeah she nailed this.
$5 says the first complaint about the billboard came from the woman herself.
Come to Denmark where we have advertising on busses with full on boobs in full show. It’s advertiseing for breast implants btw
Um, link?
Huh, OP was not exaggerating.
Thanks.
For science, of course.
I was hoping it would be for something totally inappropriate like, “Look at these tits, now drink Pepsi”
The only problem with this is the fact that it’s an advertisement. At least in the US, you cant drive down a country highway without seeing at least one advertisement for a strip club.
You can in Vermont and Hawaii, where billboards are illegal.
Hey, I did notice that driving down in Vermont, it makes for such clean looking highways and cities! We need to bring this regulation to Quebec.
Maine has a similar law too I believe.
Oh that’s wonderful, I need to visit vermont
Who are these people that pay for pornography?
Who are the people who pay for netflix instead of torrenting?
Someone has to.
deleted by creator
Heh heh heh. They said “erected”.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Billboards erected in London showing model Eliza Rose Watson in underwear advertising her OnlyFans account page have been cleared by the UK regulator following complaints that they were inappropriate for children to see.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 30 complaints stating that the posters seen in Harrow, Tottenham, Lambeth and Edgware in June and July featured adult content and were inappropriate.
ASA said that although Watson’s clothing was revealing, the image did not feature any nudity, and the pose adopted by her was “no more than mildly sexual."
“While we acknowledged that the image of Ms Watson and reference to OnlyFans might be distasteful to some, we considered that because the ad was not overtly sexual and did not objectify women, we therefore concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.”
The ASA continued: “The ad was shown on several posters throughout London, which was an untargeted medium, and was therefore likely to be seen by a large number of people, including children.”
Commenting on the reaction to the billboards, she said: "If people are offended by my ad, I’m assuming they’re also complaining about Ann Summers and Jack Daniels ones.
The original article contains 408 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Summary fails to mention who the billboards erected.
Good bot!
Nobody will think of the children if they can’t infringe on our rights to privacy and freedom, right?
If being on onlyfans constitues being a model now than I am a highly esteemed 3d enviromental designer
What a bunch of degenerates we all are. This is just sad.
