Or the problem is only that of attracting the attention, hoping in an associative link (spatial contiguity) with the product? This is a too much build image, because being only this.   Set apart these two hypotheses and I shall try to examine the content and the hidden connections.  

A man wants to kiss passionately a little bashful woman, in a room that gives on an open balcony. On the moulding, hidden to the couple, there is a monkey ( a mandrill?), worried, clearly because (the eyes) of the room, with a shirt and pants on the left arms. It seems the typical scene, where a loving meeting, quite  unconventional, had stopped for the sudden return at home of the husband or at least the official partner.

The fact that the monkey not wears only the boxer, as of use, as a hurry index, but a kind of sweater with a hood is already incongruence. All this, for to favour the purchase of a bag called Kipling, which has in its logo a monkey. The book of the jungle, of E. Kipling, from which the presence of the monkey, has a part on it? Is it an identity by spatial contiguity much surges? The identity by semantic similarity (The monkey on the moulding and monkey in the logo of the bag) is labile and self-defeating. Take  a monkey recalls drug addiction states. Is it the main key  in the  unconventionality?

Following which the massage could be:  For an unconventional woman an unconventional bag, a new identity by semantic similarity of debatable effectiveness.