Was Calvin Klein’s controversial ad campaign featuring young teens baring their underwear in a basement rec room an example of marketing brilliance or a major screw up?

As attention-getting as the ads were, the fact that Calvin Klein was forced to pull them in the face of a threatened fbi investigation – on the grounds the photographs and tv spots were arguably pornographic and some of the models appearing in them seemed to be under age – suggests the New York-based fashion and fragrance marketer was guilty of a gross miscalculation.

‘Don’t dare mess with our kids,’ was the explicit message conveyed by the thunderous public outcry against the ads. Considering the subject matter of Calvin Klein’s new magazine campaign for its CK be unisex fragrance, it would appear the firm got the message all too clearly and, further, couldn’t give a damn what the public has to say.

The models appearing in the CK be ads, which are running in the September issue of Vanity Fair, may well be interpreted as representing the drugged-out counter culture into which all parents fear their children might fall. Surely, the last thing any parent would want is for their son or daughter to come home displaying the anxious body language, dazed eyes and limp facial expressions of these models.

But in venturing once again into morally and ethically taboo terrain for the purpose of boosting product sales, Calvin Klein is being careful to keep its nose clean. No one is going to toss company officials into jail for drawing a connection between its fragrance CK be and the heroin-besotted musicians in bands like Smashing Pumpkins or the similarly drugged-out rebels portrayed in such films as Trainspotting.

However, it would be just as outrageous for the firm to promote drug use as sexualize minors. Many people, particularly parents and those middle-aged and older, are going to be infuriated by this campaign, and one has to know that is precisely the reaction being sought.

The more upset the establishment becomes at the advertising, the more approval the brand is likely to garner in the eyes of the youthful demographic that buys it.

Ultimately, this leads to the questions: Are advertisers responsible only to the bottom line? Or do they also have a responsibility for the effect their ads could have on impressionable minds? Should advertisers feel no compunction about pushing community standards as far as possible, stopping only when they hit police barriers or incite consumer boycotts? Or should they begin with the premise that it is important to respect wider community standards?

Any right thinking individual would have to say they have a responsibility to the community as a whole. This means they have an obligation to take seriously the concerns, not only of their target demographic, but of others as well.