Help us buy a good ad... (chip in)

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Help us buy a good ad... (chip in)

We'll post a screenshot of the ad after we raise the funds. We'll be taking a bikini shot of Kelly in the Florida Keys for the ad.* The website the ad will be posted at has a 75% atheistic audience with a little more traffic than us.

(Feel free to chip in past our limit, we'll rerun the ad 3 months later)

[*] During the Blasphemy Challenge ads with cute girls were clicked over 2.5% of the time, ads with Richard Dawkins were clicked less than .3% of the time.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LovE-RicH
LovE-RicH's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Hahaha, Kelly in bikini,

Hahaha, Kelly in bikini, that's great!Laughing out loud

But that will attract mostly men, you should do a shot of Sapient wearing underpands and showing his muscles for a female audience, too!


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
LovE-RicH wrote: But that

LovE-RicH wrote:

But that will attract mostly men, you should do a shot of Sapient wearing underpands and showing his muscles for a female audience, too!

 I'll be using ".3%" as my excuse.

 

In all seriousness women click picture of women almost as frequently as men click, while neither men or women prefer to click on pictures of men in comparison.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10335
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I'll toss a bit towards this

I'll toss a bit towards this tomorrow unless the target has been reached. I don't really have time right now and I've got a blaring headache.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Dante626
Gold MemberSilver Member
Dante626's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Yo, I just donated $20, but

Yo, I just donated $20, but I was wondering where this ad was going to be placed.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Yes, where will the ad be

Yes, where will the ad be posted?

Also: BUMP! 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
We'll inform you where the

We'll inform you where the ad is and show it to you in a few weeks.  We would like to keep the name private for now, so as not to be competing with other groups who utilize our market research before we can even get our feet wet.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10335
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Shit I forgot about this.

Shit I forgot about this.

*Tosses in the last 20*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


LovE-RicH
LovE-RicH's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
We'll post a screenshot of the ad after we raise the funds. We'll be taking a bikini shot of Kelly in the Florida Keys for the ad.

Screenshot! Screenshot! Screenshot!Smiling 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The right opportunity and

The right opportunity and setting didn't pop up in Florida for the picture.  We're back to the drawing board on the ad concept.  We're thinking of getting a cop girl outfit and having Kelly hold a badge like Rook did in this pic...

 

 

Give us some time.  Both money and time are tight.  

Is anyone capable of creating something like that with Kelly without us purchasing the outfit?  (photoshop).   

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: The right

Sapient wrote:

The right opportunity and setting didn't pop up in Florida for the picture. We're back to the drawing board on the ad concept. We're thinking of getting a cop girl outfit and having Kelly hold a badge like Rook did in this pic...

 

Give us some time. Both money and time are tight.

Is anyone capable of creating something like that with Kelly without us purchasing the outfit? (photoshop).

Sapient, we all know Kelly is intelligent, eloquent and strong, but I believe you said Kelly's sexiness is what made people take a closer look at the ads.  Wasn't that your purpose?  If not, both you and Kelly can slap me. (I still think the outfit she wore at the debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort was a weapon of mass distraction. Eye-wink

Photoshopping Kelly into a non-sexy cop's outfit might defeat the purpose of having her in the ad.  I could look for a sexy woman cop pic, but don't you think it would be cooler to use Kelly's real body?  Can we add a mini fund-raiser for buying a sexy outfit for her to wear?

Maybe someone else has an alternative idea?

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
If I might be so bold as to

If I might be so bold as to interject where I have no right to have an opinion, I should think this organization would be against using a female's charm to gain readership.  This is the "Rational Response Squad," no?  Is using a lady's physical attributes an appeal to rationality?  It seems to be more of an appeal to animal humours.  I think that there is nothing wrong with an attractive person being willing to manifest his/her positive attributes but wonder at the choice of forum. 

As I said, it is none of my affair.  However, is that the esprit that this site is designed for?

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: If I might be

Nero wrote:

If I might be so bold as to interject where I have no right to have an opinion, I should think this organization would be against using a female's charm to gain readership. This is the "Rational Response Squad," no? Is using a lady's physical attributes an appeal to rationality? It seems to be more of an appeal to animal humours. I think that there is nothing wrong with an attractive person being willing to manifest his/her positive attributes but wonder at the choice of forum.

As I said, it is none of my affair. However, is that the esprit that this site is designed for?

I personally wouldn't want to pose in a sexually provocative ad.  I personally couldn't pose for a sexually provocative ad...until I lost quite a bit of weight.   But if someone else wants to do it, whatever.

As for using sexiness to sell, I don't know where I stand on this issue right now.  When I was a fundy, being sexy was bad, so I was against it.  During my awakening to women's rights I saw it as objectifying women, but now I am not so sure.  We all like to look at attractive members of our preferred sex.  And like it or not, it seems to "sell."  Would you be against a sexy ad of a man?  Would that be objectifying men?

Obviously, women still have hurdles to overcome to reach equality, but I'm not sure repressing sexuality as the fundies do is the answer. 

My opinions on sexuality were completely skewed by my girl-in-a-bubble fundy experience as well as perverted Christian pedophiles.  I'm willing to listen to all sides because I just don't know how much those old attitudes--attitudes that pervade society, by the way--repress normal sexual appetites, and therefore, opinions.

Nero, why do you feel using sexuality to promote RRS is wrong?  I know you said that using sexuality doesn't seem rational.  Should we separate emotional and sexual urges from rationality entirely?  Do you have other reasons?  Is it because Kelly is a woman and you see it as objectifying women?  Do you think that inequality makes this bad and that a sexy man ad wouldn't be wrong?  Or would using any kind of sexuality to promote RRS be wrong because we're supposed to be "rational"?

Explain why you feel the way you do.  I'm willing to listen to all sides. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I appreciate the

I appreciate the opportunity to further express my views on this matter.  I think, Iruka, that you have hit on several of the key reasons that I would call upon the leadership of the site to reconsider this decision.

First, rationality is by its nature removed from emotion and the animal passions.  We know that emotion and passion are based on a very different set of chemical reactions than other areas of thought.  In fact, rationality is often eschewed in favor of these feelings.  One need only watch an angry man act as he normally would not or a sexually aroused person make decisions that would not normally be within that person's realm of choice.  So, first, I find the idea of exciting animal passions to be diametrically opposed to the site's clarion call to be rational as a society.

Second, I believe women have the right to display themselves however they prefer.  They are free beings with as many choices as any other person.  I find it suspect, however, that women seem to often be the objects of sexually based advertisements.  (I understand the marketing reasons for this and am not inclined to debate them in this forum.)  The question thus becomes whether women want to use their bodies to sell "stuff" or whether women are enticed to do so by some societal norm.  The young woman as the vixen is a common theme in our society, and it is perpetuated by old men.  I think the young vixen stands opposed to the strong, self-reliant, intelligent young woman.

Third, I must admit that my reaction comes from a desire to be in a place where someone is not trying to sell me a thought or object with the power of sex.  We swim through this every day in the media, and it is nice to go to a location that thrives on words and thoughts rather than the enticing of the animal passions.

Finally, I would say that using sex is not wrong.  Nothing is really wrong in my opinion.  I am an Existentialist, after all.  The leadership of this site must do as it sees fit.  I merely wanted to ask whether that was really the image that they wanted to portray.  No true harm comes of it one way or the next. 

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for your input.

Thanks for your input. You've given me some things to think about.

Nero wrote:

First, rationality is by its nature removed from emotion and the animal passions. We know that emotion and passion are based on a very different set of chemical reactions than other areas of thought. In fact, rationality is often eschewed in favor of these feelings. One need only watch an angry man act as he normally would not or a sexually aroused person make decisions that would not normally be within that person's realm of choice.

Very true. In fact, I would say that religion itself is based completely on appeals to emotion. This forum sometimes brings out the Mr. Spock in me, but is that healthy ?

A psychologist friend of mine sometimes gets on my case for trying to live entirely in my head. He's a huge Star Trek fan and often uses the principal characters from the original series to illustrate his idea of balance. Spock was logical; Bones was emotional; Kirk tried to balance the two. My friend argues that ignoring either logic or emotions leads to bad decision-making. We are, after all, emotional and reasoning creatures.

When I left Christianity, my mind no longer believed in hell, but my emotions lagged behind. I tried using my intellect to ease my fears, but it didn't work. My psychologist friend always argued that you have to use emotional solutions for emotional problems. I participated in a forum for ex-religionists and ridiculed the hell out of Christianity. I laughed at it. I grew angry with it. I sometimes yelled and screamed at it in my head. The fear of hell slowly eased. Now I don't fear hell at all. Of course, the ability to recognize Christianity as false was contributed by my logical side. But I couldn't address the emotional issues without emotional solutions. It was a balanced solution.

Nero wrote:
So, first, I find the idea of exciting animal passions to be diametrically opposed to the site's clarion call to be rational as a society.

And I wonder if perhaps rationality and emotionality should be balanced. I would argue that religion does not balance the two, so perhaps we should, rather than being diametrically opposed. In fact, I sometimes wonder if RRS comes across as too rational with no heart.

Rationality and emotionality should inform one another.  Emotions should hold no sway over determining facts, but emotions can help us to deal with those facts.

Nero wrote:
Second, I believe women have the right to display themselves however they prefer. They are free beings with as many choices as any other person.

Yep. I doubt you'd find anyone here that would disagree with that sentiment.

Nero wrote:
I find it suspect, however, that women seem to often be the objects of sexually based advertisements. (I understand the marketing reasons for this and am not inclined to debate them in this forum.) The question thus becomes whether women want to use their bodies to sell "stuff" or whether women are enticed to do so by some societal norm. The young woman as the vixen is a common theme in our society, and it is perpetuated by old men. I think the young vixen stands opposed to the strong, self-reliant, intelligent young woman.

You might have something here. There are times when I feel uncomfortable with the way women are portrayed and wonder why men are not objectified in the same way. However, I wonder if the difference is, in part, completely biological.

I have no factual backing for this right now, but my memory has recorded it as established fact: Men tend to be "turned on" by sight more than women. Gay men, not women, make up a large proportion of PlayGirl subscribers. I admit I could be totally wrong on this, but I don't have enough time to look up studies right now. Maybe someone else would do me the honor? Maybe I can have a look later.

Nero wrote:
Third, I must admit that my reaction comes from a desire to be in a place where someone is not trying to sell me a thought or object with the power of sex. We swim through this every day in the media, and it is nice to go to a location that thrives on words and thoughts rather than the enticing of the animal passions.

I totally agree with you on this one. It's an entirely personal preference. Sex is used to sell everything because it works. That doesn't mean I'm not sick of it. In fact, I'm sick to death of it. When I see sexy women in skimpy outfits trying to sell me Fanta or something, it pisses me off and probably makes me less likely to buy what they're selling. Of course, I don't buy a lot of frivolous crappola anyway, so I'm not the targeted audience. The targeted audience are those who don't feel as you and I do and apparently the ploy works or we wouldn't be swimming through a sea of sex-oriented advertisements.

What can we do about it? Not much. You have expressed your opinion that RRS should not join the fray. Maybe you're right. I just don't know. Is our target audience the same ones targeted by soft drink companies? Partially. I think our targeted audience is everybody.

Nero wrote:
Finally, I would say that using sex is not wrong. Nothing is really wrong in my opinion. I am an Existentialist, after all. The leadership of this site must do as it sees fit. I merely wanted to ask whether that was really the image that they wanted to portray. No true harm comes of it one way or the next.

Agreed. We've both expressed our personal feelings that such an ad would not appeal to us. I guess it's up to the rest of RRS to decide whether or not to go through with it. My objections are not strong enough for me to get my panties in a bunch over it. Smiling

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Michael A. Thompson
Michael A. Thompson's picture
Posts: 79
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I read a report in "The

I read a report in "The Economist" that in South Africa a study was done with bank advertising.  A huge mass mailing was sent out to advertise a loan.  Half had a picture of a pretty women (NOT provocatively dressed) the other without.  Even though everything else in the ads were the same the one with the women had 30% more calls.I would suggest just having a picture of a good looking  women would do just as well as a skimpily clad one and it would also be in better taste.  Besides, everyone knows atheists like sheep and not women.  Smiling

"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Can I be the token theist?

Can I be the token theist?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ok, so... first we had

Ok, so... first we had problems in Florida getting the right moment to take the picture. We were originally gonna take a bikini shot on the beach and then decided to go with a cop outfit instead. We ordered the cop outfit and when it got here, it turns out Kelly cant get her breasts in it. So tonight Kelly had her friend over and she helped us out..

hot ad

 

 

This is not the ad itself, just an image to get started. We'll be creating the ad soon. (see... we didn't forget!)

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: If I might be

Nero wrote:

If I might be so bold as to interject where I have no right to have an opinion, I should think this organization would be against using a female's charm to gain readership. This is the "Rational Response Squad," no? Is using a lady's physical attributes an appeal to rationality? It seems to be more of an appeal to animal humours. I think that there is nothing wrong with an attractive person being willing to manifest his/her positive attributes but wonder at the choice of forum.

As I said, it is none of my affair. However, is that the esprit that this site is designed for?

 

Do you take issue with the picture above?

Personally I think it's extremely rational to appeal to the sexual nature of humans rather than act more like religion and shy away from it.  Anywho... I am curious if you envisioned something more provocative and view the above picture/ad as a positive use of the ad revenue created in this thread.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Being classy is always in

Being classy is always in style. The above photo will get a lot of response but maybe not your target market.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Being

Randalllord wrote:
Being classy is always in style. The above photo will get a lot of response but maybe not your target market.

 If they can't handle a picture of an "atheist chick," they're not in RRS' target market.

What do I think of the picture?  I'd click that! Sticking out tongue

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Currently churches are

Currently churches are trying to revive the image of religion as being hip and rebellious in order to distance itself with the stodgy, boring relic of the past.  As for Atheism, anyone who has been to an Atheist convention will notice that the majority of the people there can probably pick up their social security checks.

Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett advertise Atheism as intellectual, but also as old.  So it makes sense to advertise the younger, sexy side of freedom. 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Nero

Sapient wrote:
Nero wrote:

If I might be so bold as to interject where I have no right to have an opinion, I should think this organization would be against using a female's charm to gain readership. This is the "Rational Response Squad," no? Is using a lady's physical attributes an appeal to rationality? It seems to be more of an appeal to animal humours. I think that there is nothing wrong with an attractive person being willing to manifest his/her positive attributes but wonder at the choice of forum.

As I said, it is none of my affair. However, is that the esprit that this site is designed for?

 

Do you take issue with the picture above?

Personally I think it's extremely rational to appeal to the sexual nature of humans rather than act more like religion and shy away from it.  Anywho... I am curious if you envisioned something more provocative and view the above picture/ad as a positive use of the ad revenue created in this thread.

 

I do not personally take issue with the photograph.  The young woman is attractive and clothed, albeit minimally. 

I admit that I am ambivalent on this issue.  I appreciate that the ad will generate added interest.  You are trying to grab the attention of the casual browser, and men will respond to this visual stimulus.  So, it will work as an ad.  There is merit in that.

On the other hand, as I stated earlier, the animal passions rarely lead to the use of rational faculties.  I think we have all experienced the stupidity that goes along with allowing the animal passions to rule our decisions. 

Further, I question whether the objectification of women is socially beneficial.  After all, the site seeks to rid the world of religion as a benefit to mankind.  It would be a pity to replace the crucifix with the physical form, or anything else for that matter.  Once it is stricken, no point in having anything in its place.

As for the use of the female form to act as a foil to Christian sensibilities, Christianity does look to the purity of women through the Virgin, but it also has Magdalene, the whore.  There are undercurrents of sexuality throughout Christian dogma.  So, I am not sure that using sex as a foil against religion works.

In conclusion, I would say that the money should be used as it was originally intended.  Clearly, I was the only one to have any real qualms, and sex sells anything.  So, the photo should be used.  I hope you will pardon my ovine reaction.

By the bye, should the young lady be single, she and I really ought to correspond.  I am going to the Bahamas soon.  Eye-wink

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote:By the bye,

Nero wrote:

By the bye, should the young lady be single, she and I really ought to correspond.  I am going to the Bahamas soon.  Eye-wink

Be careful of those "animal passions" there.

Nero wrote:
Further, I question whether the objectification of women is socially beneficial.

I question if opting for a far less effective means of gaining attention and members is socially beneficial. While we sit here debating relatively small issues, radical fanatics with invisible friends are ruining the world.  I think I'm perfectly ok with slutty-looking women getting someone interested in atheist activism, even if it's with their "animal" passions at first.

Nero wrote:
So, I am not sure that using sex as a foil against religion works.

No, I think it's that those who say they believe in god outnumber us by at least 7 or 8 to 1.  This is a good step to start changing that. 

Atheism is damn sexy

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


Dante626
Gold MemberSilver Member
Dante626's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-10-16
User is offlineOffline
There are people who simply

There are people who simply would not come to this site of their own accord on purely rational reasons. Those people could be "lured" (to use an unfortunate word) here with an ad like that and some of those people will stay afterwards. Also.... Magdalene WAS a whore, wasn't she? My memory may be failing me, but I'm pretty sure she did not continue her profession after following Jesus, correct?

 On another note, after reading the arguments earlier, I was actually surprised by how much clothes the young woman actually has. Maybe I'm just from a more liberal area, but I don't even think she IS scantily clad. The fact that she is attractive and wearing a "sexy" outfit does not make it in itself objectifying, especially since it fits the motif of a squad or some other kind of unit.

I agree that using something like sex simply because it opposed by many religions is a bad idea. However, I think Brian and others here have explained pretty well the reasons for using a "sexy" woman, which are very rational. Emotions, sexuality, and the other "animal desires" are in no way bad or negative things. Attempting to suppress them falls directly in line with what many religions do. I do not think it is a good thing to embrace only emotions, but on the flip side nor do I think it is a good idea to embrace only the logical side of human nature. We are HUMAN, creatures of both emotion and reason. A person lives a fuller life by embracing both, not destroying one for the other. Rationally understanding emotions and embracing them is good. Humans are animals, we cannot have anything BUT animal passions. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Random thought: you can get

Random thought: you can get a decent softbox lighting kit off eBay or Craigslist. Eye-wink