Being right by the wrong reasons

In planeetgroenlinks there is a brouhaha about the CDA minister Klink, that has censored a poster campaign, given that they advertize organ donors with some -more or less- erotic photos.

Of course, to prevent a institutional campaign due to some erotism involved in it sound pretty conservative, if not stupid. If those are the reasons from Klink makes a lot of sense to be critical of this new manifestation of the new cabinet.

But suppose that Klink is right, even if by the wrong reasons? Perhaps sex does not sell, after all...

Just take a look at here:

---------------
The big turn off
From The Economist

Using sex to sell a product does not work—particularly for women

SEXUAL allure is often hinted as being the prize for buying this or that. Yet advertising wares during commercial breaks in programmes with an erotic theme can be tricky: the minds of viewers tend to be preoccupied with what they have just seen and the advertisement is ignored. New research now suggests that even if the commercial is made sexually enticing, people still fail to remember it.
(...)
To test the (...) hypothesis, the researchers compared the recollections of those who had seen the advertisements that used the promise of sexual allure with those of the people who saw advertisements that did not titillate. They found no significant difference between the two groups. There was, however, a difference between the sexes: men were more likely to remember sexual advertisements (albeit not the brand advertised) whereas women were more likely to remember non-sexual advertisements.
(...)
Earlier work has suggested that sex and violence in television programmes deter people from paying attention to advertisements, but speculated that this may be overcome by using sex in the commercials as well. The new work suggests that this view is mistaken. It would appear that sex does not sell anything other than itself.