#Maltesers tries mixing disability with humour, nails it

How interesting is this? Maltesers, a British candy brand, has taken the bold step of taking a humorous look at the lifestyles of people with disabilities in a new campaign for the Paralympics.

Instead of dewy-eyed homages to bravery and overcoming obstacles, these ads portray people with disabilities talking to their friends about real-life challenges like awkward sexual situations:

Another talks about a hearing aid being eaten and shat out by a partner's goofy dog:

Yet another is about a wedding dance floor disaster:

They're funny (the first one especially), respectful, and wonderfully human. They don't pretend the disabilities don't exist; they show instead that they are essential parts of the lives and identities of the people who live with them.

The other thing I like about these is that they're still ads. No product benefits (like taste) are mentioned, but the candies still play a big support role in these cute little vignettes.

And they're paying off! According to campaign, Britain's Channel 4 offered a million Pounds worth of free TV media during the Paralympics to the advertisers with "the best creative idea with diversity at the heart of a campaign."

Maltesers (a Mars brand) and its ad agency, Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, were selected from a shortlist that included Amazon (Lucky Generals); Barclays (Bartle Bogle Hegarty London); Dove (Ogilvy & Mather); H&M (Adam & Eve/DDB); Lloyds Bank (Adam & Eve/DDB); Lynx (TMW Unlimited); and Purdey’s (Iris Worldwide).

My only criticism is of the third one, "Dance Floor," which seems a little forced at the end. But kudos to a brand and agency for trying something new with the right mix of bravery and sensitivity.

Another British brand tries trolling non-customers as a marketing strategy

The Sun

Remember the controversy over Protein World's "Beach Body Ready" ads last year? The ads sparked a firestorm of Twitter protest, inspired vandalism and parody ads, and was eventually banned by the ASA.

The campaign, which Adland's Dabitch described as "trolling as a social media strategy," resulted in huge amounts of earned media and — according to Marketing — £1million in direct sales revenue.

I've never been a fan of the cliché, "there's no such thing as bad publicity," but for brands that are seeking to grow a narrow-but-oppositional target market, it can work.

The Sun

Enter Gourmet Burger Kitchen, a UK chain that decided to dust off an old chestnut for meat vendors: Making fun of vegetarians.

The Sun

The reaction was as big as it was predictable:

@KirstenHenry these are more appropriate ads....mocking people that care about animals ✊🏼💦 #gourmetmurderkitchen pic.twitter.com/LcNnFOSTtf

— paul warmington (@paulwarmo) January 18, 2016

The advertiser has since made a tepid apology on Facebook, and has promised to take down "some of" the ads. But a follow up survey, published in The Drum, showed that the campaign was likely to increase sales slightly.

Which makes me wonder, are angry social media protests over campaigns like these just playing into the hands of the most cynical marketers? Do activists risk becoming one more channel for earned media?

I'd love to hear some opinions about what's happening, and what could go differently.

Proposed "Museum of Women’s History" ends up cashing in on Jack The Ripper

Via Wikimedia Commons

Imagine if Montreal promised to open a museum of women's history, and instead dedicated it to Marc Lépine.

Something similar has happened in London. A museum that was promised to be “the only dedicated resource in the East End to women’s history” opened last week, opened to reveal this:

Via Alamy Live News

A document  sent by the museum's architects to Tower Hamlets council last summer,  to get permission to convert an empty Victorian shop into a museum,  "included pictures of suffragettes and equal pay campaigners and designs for a museum called the Museum of Women’s History," reports the Guardian.

Instead, they got a place dedicated to an anonymous serial killer who targeted women sex workers and mutilated their reproductive organs.

The businessman behind the tourist trap, Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe, told the Standard:

“We did plan to do a museum about social history of women but as the project developed we decided a more interesting angle was from the perspective of the victims of Jack the Ripper. It is absolutely not celebrating the crime of Jack the Ripper but looking at why and how the women got in that situation in the first place.”

And what, exactly, is that supposed to mean? More shockingly, the Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe quoted is a diversity and corporate social responsibility expert who has worked with Google, Barclays, and the Global Diversity List, (associated with The Economist).

His LinkedIn profile reads, "I am passionate about all aspects of diversity and corporate social responsibility and believe that all individuals should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. For me diversity and CSR are key business issues that I am adept in utilising to add financial, commercial and reputational benefits to organisations - as well as creating a great company for employees and customers."

He also mentions that he was voted to  the top 25 most influential LGBT people Globally by the World Pride / Guardian Powerlist in 2012, and that he is the Chairman of Board of Trustees at The Inclusive Foundation "a UK based Charitable Foundation aimed at helping young people to realise their full potential."

Is this really the same person? What the hell is going on over there?

(Thanks to Patrick for the tip)

Another outrageously sexist London Underground ad

via @JenniTrimlett

It seems to be the latest fad in transit advertising: 

1. Make outrageously sexist ad2. Revel in the attention3. Profit

 Why else would advertisers continue to post this rubbish, if not to get a reaction?

via @ella_sharp1

This campaign, as I saw it on Mirror, isn't "edgy" or clever; it's just more deliberate denigration of women for eyeballs and clicks.

So why am I contributing to the problem, by sharing it here? Because we need to change the conversation about this kind of advertising, and the public spaces it pollutes. This is especially timely because Transport for London has banned other ads, such as one for the play My Night With Reg,  and another for a Royal Academy of Arts exhibition on Lucas Cranach the Elder, because of artistic nudity.

This prudishness about the human body, combined with a "lad-mag" lack of sensitivity about gender issues, leads me to believe that Transport for London's advertising department is run by elderly men who have not been allowed to receive any other contact from the outside world since 1975.

I won't even talk about the brand behind these stupid ads. They're not worth my time or yours. But Transport for London needs to smarten the hell up, and develop some 21st century ad standards.

@ProteinWorld vs. "sympathisers for fatties"

The Drum

Oh, dear. A fitness supplement brand in the UK has taken it upon itself to become the patron saint of body shaming.

The Drum reports that, faced with online criticism over its "are you beach body ready?" ad campaign, Protein World decided not only to be unapologetic, but downright nasty:

Twitter

That particular exchange was started by blogger Laurence Hebbard, who wrote about their confrontational social media engagement on Social Media London. Here are some of the curated exchanges:

Someone even made a fake Dove response ad:

As of this writing, the protein shake maker is completely unapologetic. They seem quite happy to bask in the negative publicity (as well as the many Tweets of support from fans).

Is this an example of the tired cliché "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? That remains to be seen. While this kind of obnoxious brand behaviour is bound to ingratiate it to a certain segment of the fitness market, they're also trying to sell weight loss products. Is it really such a great idea to shame people who might actually be interested in such things?

Adopting "being an asshole" as a brand strategy is a risky move, but not an unprecedented one. Now it's just a matter of seeing how many assholes are willing to self-identify by buying the stuff.

Is KFC celebrating foster care, or exploiting it?

As brands struggle to stay relevant in the social era, we are seeing an increasing move into ads that address deeply emotional issues.

Here's he latest:

In KFC UK's case, it's the touching story of a boy in foster care growing up in a supportive environment (which includes being welcomed with a big bucket of fried chicken).

It's pretty intense, and it brought a tear to this cynical aging adman's eye. But it also raises some questions.

Parent Dish has reviewed some of the negative feedback on social media, and summarizes:

Those who dislike the ad have argued that the trauma a child experiences in an abusive and/or neglectful birth family, compounded by the anxiety of being taken into care, cannot be mended by a bucket of chicken, however finger-lickin' good it might be. They believe that KFC are suggesting their chicken fixes these things.

It also points to a change.org petition that accuses the ad of "it glorifies the care system with little to no thought having been given to the real children entering the care system who are traumatized and have been torn away from their families and everything they know."

Those words seem eerily familiar to me, as several years ago I worked on a foster care campaign for the Children's Aid Societies of Eastern Ontario and we ended up attracting the attention of people who object to the way state intervention on child abuse is conducted.

Back to KFC: Yes, they are exploiting a deeply emotional story that is very personal to many people to sell fried chicken. Just as Coca-Cola and McDonald's have done for generations.

One thing KFC did, to its credit, is to consult with longtime children's advocate Barnardo's to ensure the subject was approached with sensitivity.

Barnardo's spokesperson Gerry Tissier stated, "Barnardo's saw the KFC ad before it was aired. We recognise that it cannot fully convey the difficulties which children and young people face when moving into a new family. However, we believe it shows that foster and adoptive parents can and do make a real positive difference to a child's life. If it persuades more people to come forwards for a child who needs a family, that will only be a good thing."

That's a good point. Charities are turning more and more to private sector brands for sponsorship. The charity gets program, production, and media money, as well as exposure. The brand gets to bond with its audiences over a warmed heart or a good cry.

I found an interesting quote about the the changing nature of emotional marketing, from Leisha Roche, senior director of marketing for grocery brands at Kraft Canada. She talked about how the media environment is awash in personal stories and heartfelt appeals: “You’re not competing with other brands anymore. You’re competing with people,” she said.

The KFC ad made me feel like I had something in my eye. Which is good. I just never want to forget that I'm watching a fast food ad.

Using tired "beer goggles" clichés to sell taxi service

Via Daily Mail 

You know, we advertising practitioners really should adopt something like the popular conception of the Hippocratic Oath, starting with the words, "First, do no harm."

We're here to represent our clients, but we are also contributing to the language and imagery of popular culture and media. When we create something that gets attention by promoting stereotypes — or worse — unearned scorn towards our fellow humans, then we are being irresponsible.

Via Daily Mail 

These bar ads, by West Quay Cars taxi company of Southampton, UK, are an example of this. They use the hackneyed old idea of beer goggles to imply that this large woman and tacky man are unworthy of love.

Note the difference. The man is a cartoonish stereotype of a disco-era lounge lizard. The woman, on the other hand, is mostly implied to be unattractive because she is fat.

The Southampton University Feminist Society wrote an open letter to the advertiser, stating:

This advert is a form of body policing and an example of fatphobia. It is making fun of someone because of the way they look. This objectifying, judging lens is something we are well aware of in the media, for both genders, but especially for women. Therefore seeing the female version of this advert by itself, as it first was, some members branded it sexist. It was only later that the male version was posted. Members immediately voiced their dislike of the male version also, noting again that it was an unacceptable form of body-policing.

The company issued the standard non-apology:

"We apologise for any offence that may have been caused by either of the posters,” manager Lee Haynes told The Tab. 

"We recognised that the campaign may be controversial, but in our opinion, our obligation to try to reduce the amount of lives devastated by drink or drug drivers ever year was overriding. 

"We refute the claim that either our advertising or West Quay cars as a company is sexist or discriminatory in anyway.

They mentioned that 16 of their staff of 22 are women.

I'm sure that some of their best friends are also Black.

Related: The goggles do nothing (Osocio.org)

Urban Outfitters takes an early lead in 2015's Body Image Hall of Shame

Is it a bad Photoshop, or does this model have impossibly long and skinny legs? Either way, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority ruled in favour of a consumer complaint that "the model in the picture was unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful." It appeared in the UK version of the popular retailer's online catalogue.

The ASA ruling stated, "We understood that Urban Outfitters’ target market was young people and considered that using a noticeably underweight model was likely to impress upon that audience that the image was representative of the people who might wear Urban Outfitters’ clothing, and as being something to aspire to. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible."

Urban Outfitters responded with "We do not believe she was underweight."

Another recent ruling against the chain found their ad for a "Fuck my liver" hip flask, advertised with the slogan, "Drink like the rebel you are," to also be irresponsible.

IKEA interactive mirror wants you to feel good about yourself... shopping

Adfreak featured a new PR stunt by IKEA in the UK that consists of a mirror that compliments the appearance of people who look into it. Cute, eh?

Adfreak's Tim Nudd compared it to Dove's strategy of building confidence by celebrating "real beauty." But what is a machine that doles out automated compliments really doing?

This is just a fun little story, but I wonder if such obviously fake compliments do more harm than good. IKEA says that this project is trying to address the problem that half of British people don't get complimented by anyone in an average week. But are people really so easily flattered that they respond positively to a robot?

Apparently so:


Self-esteem is a wonderful thing. But the automatic compliment-generator reminded me of something Peggy Drexler, Ph.D, wrote a couple of years ago in Psychology Today. She revealed that the current generation of parents is damaging their children's ability to succeed by over-complimenting them:

Research with children and families has indeed told us that praise has the opposite intended effect. It does not make children work harder, or do better. In fact, kids who are told they’re bright and talented are easily discouraged when something is “too difficult;” those who are not praised in such a manner are more motivated to work harder and take on greater challenges. The unpraised, in turn, show higher levels of confidence, while overpraised are more likely to lie to make their performances sound better. Praise becomes like a drug: once they get it, they need it, want it, are unable to function without it.

The compliments referenced are about academic or athletic achievement. Another school of thought says that more superficial compliments — specifically, when adults endlessly tell girls how pretty they look — actually adds to body image anxiety by programming them to believe that attractiveness is the main standard by which their worth is judged.

Adults are smart enough to know that the IKEA mirror is just a toy.  But adults are not immune to the more subtle effects of false ego-boosting in advertising. Elaine Chan and Jaideep Sengupta at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology published research that demonstrated how consumers' behaviour was motivated by flattery in marketing, even when they were fully aware that the advertising was insincere:

participants in the study were asked to evaluate the merits of a new department store opening in the area based on one of the store’s advertisements. In addition to describing the new store’s offerings, the ad lauded readers for their impeccable sense of style and eye for high fashion. While participants overwhelmingly categorized the pamphlet as flattery with the ulterior motive of pushing blouses, the experimenters were more interested in how their attitudes would be influenced at the implicit level. Might participants develop a non-conscious positive association with the department store, even after rejecting the ad as meaningless puffery? And if so, would this implicit reaction be a better predictor of decisions and behavior down the road? Will even the people who are wise to advertising tricks end up at the register, credit card in hand? 

It turns out that implicit attitudes towards the store were more positive than explicit attitudes. They were also better predictors of reported likelihood of making future purchases, as well as likelihood of joining the store’s club. So it seems that while participants quickly dismissed these ads at the explicit level, the flattery was exerting an important effect outside their awareness.

So, is IKEA making its UK customers more confident about their bodies? Or is it just giving them a quick hit of artificial self-esteem to boost sales, at the expense of creating an even more compliment-addicted, superficial and narcissistic culture?

Let's go back and look at Dove. I've criticized the brand quite a bit for some of its stunts, but here in Canada the Dove Self-Esteem Project is taking a very different direction from the IKEA mirror. It states: "The pressure on girls to be beautiful impacts their self-esteem and can hold them back from fulfilling their potential in life." But rather than insincerely telling all girls that they are meeting a common beauty standard, the program tries to shift girls' self-esteem away from simple appearance.

The IKEA mirror is just a silly little stunt to get earned media. But it also says a lot about where we're going as a society. Or rather, how far we haven't come.

Scottish anti-independence ad goes "bad" viral #PatronisingBTlady

Last one. This is too funny. @_Pandy storyboards #PatronisingBTLady ad. @robertflorence pic.twitter.com/Oq4IsIqSVs
— James Lees (@jamesvsburger) August 26, 2014

You might wonder what they were thinking.

The "no" movement in the Scottish independence referendum, Better Together, recently released this video ad featuring a woman soliloquizing at home after sending off her husband and kids:



Almost immediately, a backlash began. Under the hashtag #PatronisingBTlady, an explosion of memes started circulating to criticize the gendered clichés around a stay-at-home housewife who finds politics confusing:

Perfect summary of the new @UK_Together campaign video. Targeted at woman - but so patronising? #PatronisingBTLady pic.twitter.com/FePthazKYB
— Greg indyref (@YesIndyref) August 26, 2014

MISSING: Brow-beaten male, late 30s-early 40s, last seen in Co-op buying "Ricicles"... #indyref #PatronisingBTLady pic.twitter.com/uEUIp6nZ4s
— Oisean (@OssiansDream) September 1, 2014

Better Together's new ad sees ridicule and #PatronisingBTLady meme backlash on Twitter http://t.co/UIZHIv16M0 pic.twitter.com/1J8njhFIXw
— The Drum (@TheDrum) August 27, 2014

I had to… #PatronisingBTLady pic.twitter.com/oCOEimOgHU
— CakeQuestEdin (@CakeQuestEdin) August 26, 2014

The viral activity has since spilled over into mainstream media in the UK. However, the people behind the campaign defend it:

Despite the fact the film has created a vociferous internet response punctuated by a series of caustic retaliatory memes, campaign director Blair McDougall has defended the piece’s cinematic integrity. McDougall suggests the piece is flavored with social realism. 

The ad uses words“taken verbatim from conversations on doorstops with undecided women voters,”and from the“opinion of women in dozens of focus groups around the country,”he claimed. While the ad has heightened the campaign’s profile considerably, the precise nature of publicity it has garnered may not be warmly welcomed.

Certainly, there are individual women in Scotland who resemble the stereotype. But does that mean it's something that should be reinforced in a national advertising campaign?

Scottish social anthropologist (and "Yes" man) weighed in with a meme of his own:

#patronisingBTlady #indyref pic.twitter.com/shpcb5vt8O
— Michael Swann (@notarealswan) August 26, 2014

But the real question is whether this ad will sway any voters. And moreover, which way will it sway them?

Dumb e-cig ad is a throwback to a more racist era

This ad, from Belfast, is kind of shocking in its cluelessness. Taboo love between a mature white woman and a young black man! The scandal!

Fortunately, according to campaign, the Northern Irish didn't like it much either. The Advertising Standards Authority received several complaints, and ruled that "consumers viewing the ad would believe it was presenting a relationship between an older and younger individual, particularly an older woman and a younger man, and a couple of different races, as something that was unusual or socially unacceptable."

The ad has been ordered removed, which is always a touchy subject. I far prefer when brands willingly remove ads because it's in their best interests not to piss off customers by pretending it's still the 1950s.

8-year-old NHS PSA causes fresh outrage over victim blaming

Via Daily Mail

Patrick, a reader, made me aware of the latest example of an anti-binge-drinking ad that ends up promoting the culture of blaming victims of rape.

In this case, it's the UK government's National Health Service that is causing outrage.

The Drum reports that the poster actually dates back to 2006,  part of the "Know Your Limits" campaign, but it is still available as part of an online toolkit and posted in some health facilities.

A Change.org petition, launched recently, states:

Two honourable intentions -- to stop people drinking, and to stop rape happening - are being completely deformed. Of course we don't want people to drink so much they make themselves ill, but threatening them with rape by implication is not the way to do it. Of course we don't want anyone to endure sexual assault and rape, but making them feel like it's their fault if they do, is so far out of order. 

It is not consistent with the NHS' own guidelines on 'Help after rape and sexual assault' in which they say 'If you have been sexually assaulted, remember that it wasn’t your fault. It doesn’t matter what you were wearing, where you were or whether you had been drinking. A sexual assault is always the fault of the perpetrator.' This is a much more helpful approach, and we ask the NHS and the Home Office to destroy this poster in all formats. 

It currently has over 62,000 signatures.

There have been a number of prominent anti-alcohol campaigns in recent years that have hit these same triggers, including PSAs by MADD, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, CabWise and West Mercia Police.

The fact that the NHS campaign is an older one shows how far we've come in understanding the cultural issues around rape in just a few years, but it is also a reminder to keep your PSA libraries up-to-date.

The worst road safety shock ad you will see this week

Spoiler: They all die

Redditor JamieDrogheda shared this really dreadful PSA two days ago, for the Department of The Environment in Northern Ireland.

The Belfast Telegraph calls it "more closely resembling something like Sharknado than a traditional road safety ad." The ASA won't let it be shown on TV before 9 pm.

I'll simply call it overwrought, manipulative and misguided:



This kind of shock ad should stay in the 1970s, the golden age of driving school snuff films. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is going to drive more slowly because of this ad. Instead of seeing it as a symbolic slaughter of all the children killed by speeding, they're more likely to see it as almost comical.

Just look at the "special effects":

The teacher doesn't seem too concerned by the flattened children.

BBQ joint ad mocks vegetarians and mental health campaigns

This campaign for Red’s True BBQ, a carnivorous join in Leeds and Manchester, UK, is trying to be funny. I get that.

Oppositional meat-loving is well known, from the classic "Plenty of room for all God's creatures" ad for the Saskatoon steakhouse, to passive-aggressive notes on campus billboards.

But it's not vegetarians who are outraged at this one. It's mental health advocates.

From the Leeds Student Newspaper:

Responding to the outcry on social media, the restaurant has posted a blog apologising for mocking vegetarianism, stating that they are “currently liaising with media owners to update the billboard”. However, there is no apology for mocking mental illness or domestic abuse charities. 

According to Mind, one in four people in the UK will experience a mental health problem each year. The most common form of mental illness is mixed anxiety and depression, which affects about one in ten. Refuge, a charity that deals with domestic abuse, says that two women each week are killed from domestic violence. 

But these facts probably never occurred to Red’s True BBQ.

Probably not. Brands as big as McDonald's have made similar mistakes, assuming that it was OK to lampoon mental health PSA clichés to sell stuff.

It's not. At least, not anymore.

It should be noted that Red's BBQ has offered the standard non-apology — but only to "offended" vegetarians.

Making fun of people's life choices seems like fair game to me. It should be noted that Red's BBQ has offered the standard non-apology — but only to "offended" vegetarians.

Making fun of people's life choices seems like fair game to me. Mocking who they are, however, in my opinion is not.

Unfamiliar with the concept of free speech, North Koreans demand UK take action against "Bad Hair Day" poster

Via National Post

Making fun of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un's distinctive tonsure has become one of the official sports of the internet, so it's no surprise that a hair salon got in on the action.

Neither super clever nor outrageous, the poster might have been a minor meme on Reddit for five seconds, then forgotten. Except that this salon is in London, and not too far from the North Korean embassy.

According to the Evening Standard, two men from the embassy paid a visit to the shop owner, Mo Nabbach, took pictures, and generally tried to threaten him:

He said they then came back and asked to speak to the manager before ordering him to take the poster down because it was “disrespectful” to their leader. 

“I told them this is England and not North Korea and told them to get their lawyers,” he added. 

“We did take it down but then some of our clients told me to put it back up because we have a democracy here.

“The two guys were wearing suits and they were very serious. It was very threatening.”

 Now, AP reports that North Korean diplomats have asked the British Foreign Office to take action against the salon, with "necessary action to stop the provocation." Police had already investigated the matter, and determined that no crime had occurred.

British MP slammed for patronizing "bread and circuses" ad

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.

- Juvenal 

 Seems some things never change.

#budget2014 cuts bingo & beer tax helping hardworking people do more of the things they enjoy. RT to spread the word pic.twitter.com/5vbL7RDAg5
— Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) March 19, 2014

According to The Drum:

Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has insisted he loves bingo and drinks beer after he faced a storm of criticism over a poster he tweeted following the UK budget this week. 

Chancellor George Osborne gave the bingo industry a tax cut and took a penny off beer duty in the budget, prompting Shapps to tweet a poster reading ‘Bingo! Cutting the bingo tax and been duty – to help hard working people do more of the things they enjoy’. 

Shapps encouraged followers to retweet him and spread the word – which they did, kicking off a storm in which users accused him of being condescending. He also faced criticism for using the term ‘they’.

Mr. Shapps has since defended his message, insisting, “personally, I drink beer and I love a game of bingo." The Guardian's Owen Jones called it "so patronising it looks like a crude attempt at satire."

Here are some of the better reactions on Twitter:

@double_dex I've never been more convinced something real was fake. Maybe it's some sort of genius we haven't worked out?
— daysofspeed (@daysofspeed) March 19, 2014

@grantshapps hey @David_Cameron have you read this? Do you have anybody who isn't a liability?
— John (@biod49) March 19, 2014

@JeanHaines @grantshapps Sorry I was distracted for a moment thought I'd got "house" - hadn't :( back to me beer!
— John (@biod49) March 19, 2014

@grantshapps Gawd bless yer, guv'nor. You're a toff. Doffs cap. Dies of plague. #ToryBingo #GinPalaces
— Tony McK (@oakroyd) March 19, 2014

Sweet Jaysus, @grantshapps, why not just stick a picture up of a bloke with a flat cap, whippets and a fucking football ticket.
— Chris Nicholson (@EraseThisTweet) March 19, 2014

Paddy Power provokes with "Oscar" ad, succeeds

It's not easy to be a more insensitive and offensive advertiser that PETA, but online betting outfit Paddy Power does it on a regular basis.

This time, it's an "Oscars" ad that features accused murderer and elite athlete Oscar Pistorius. And oh, did they get what they wanted:

Paddy Power's controversial ad campaign featuring Oscar Pistorius, which offers "money back if he walks", is to be investigated by the UK's advertising watchdog after receiving nearly 50 complaints. 

The adverts, which offer refunds for losing bets if the South African Paralympian is found not guilty of the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, has been criticised for being in bad taste. 

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) received 46 complaints in two days and has now decided to launch a formal investigation.

Now there's a Change.org petition to "please remove your offensive betting on the outcome of the Oscar Pistorius trial and donate any profits so far to a women's charity fighting violence against women." It has, of this writing, 122,610 digital signatures.

Not that any of the offended are in Paddy Power's target market. In fact, I wonder if they actually get more business from stunts like this (and this, and this) than they ever had the potential to lose.

It's a cynical adworld out there.

Hotels4U ad brings up issues of old-world regional prejudice

Via The Mail

It's not just the old world. Here in Canada, Newfie jokes used to be as common as donuts. And in the States, Southern, Appalachian and even Midwestern accents and attitudes have often been fodder for satire.

But there's something especially interesting about the longstanding prejudices and modern hurt feelings brought on by regional stereotypes within the modern nations of Europe. When I lived in Italy, the Milanese told me they thought the Genoese were cheap, and the Sicilians criminal. The Sicilians said they thought the Milanese (and other northerners) were stuck up and avaricious. The whole North vs. South conflict is actually what brought Berlusconi, a northern nationalist, to power years ago.

My own ethnic homeland of England and the British Isles has similar cultural stereotypes and conflicts. Unlike the new world, the regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland have centuries of separate political, cultural, and linguistic history. Just a few hundred years ago, dialects of "English" were mutually unintelligible in regions a day's journey apart.

Today, regional differences are still a source of pride among those who have not moved far from ancestral lands. Which might explain the controversy over this goofy little ad by Hotels4U:



First of all, could you understand what he was saying? I couldn't. It's apparently the campaign tagline, "Anything for you, cupcake," in a thick Birmingham accent.

The Daily Mail says that "Brummies" (another thing I learned today) are furious over the portrayal of their distinctive way of speaking, especially in the mouths of such tacky characters.

Here are some representative Tweets:

As a Brummie I honestly want an atomic bomb to land directly on that blokes head from the #hotels4u advert
— Kaine Able Barr (@kainebarr) January 28, 2014

Hotels4U please fuck off with your fake Brummie accent on your advert. No one talks like that here.
— Sophia ⚓ (@SophiaShikari) January 20, 2014

As a brummie who doesnt speak like the people in the Hotels4u ad I am offended by it. I consider it to be racist
— BamafanUK (@Bronxzoo10) January 28, 2014

"Racist"? Let that sink in for a minute. It reminds me of times when I have heard my fellow Canadians, who speak French, talk about language conflict in Canada as "racism". It really shows you how unscientific, and therefore universally useless the term "race" really is.

The Mail reveals that the actor playing the Birmingham husband, Craig Painting, is actually from the city.

Mike Hoban, marketing director for Hotels4u, stated: "We wanted to create a popular duo that people would warm to. That’s why we cast a Birmingham born and bred actor as our lead character. We wanted to use a friendly accent from one of the great UK regions to help create a distinctive character so that people remember how easy it is to save money on hotel bookings"

Distinctive? Certainly. And memorable. It could even be effective over the long term, as long as they don't end up getting boycotted by an entire offended region.

But is it right to use regional accents and stereotypes as ad fodder? Is it "racist"? Classist? Just plain rude?

Comments welcomed below.

...because old people are asexual, get it?

Are we sick of the grannie clichés yet? This is an ad by Y&R London for Red 5, "the ultimate gadget shop." Does this mean they don't sell dildos? Doesn't sound very ultimate to me!

Here's the rest of the series, via Ads of The World:

Can you shame people out of using the ER as a walk-in clinic?

In a public healthcare system, one of the biggest drains on resources is the people who come to Emergency for problems that should be addressed by family doctors, clinics, or even telephone health advisors.

More urgently, the long wait-times that result can actually prevent the people who desperately need treatment from getting it in time. At least, that's what this PSA from the UK National Health Service in Suffolk wants you to know:



It's not exactly a subtle message. And if you read this blog (or my posts on Osocio) regularly, you know I'm not a fan of guilt and shame as social motivators.

I don't like the ad. But in this particular case, I think it could actually work. The difference is that the "ask" of this PSA is actually pretty simple: to call the NHS telephone health line first.

Who wouldn't prefer to avoid a trip to the ER waiting room, where non-emergency cases get triaged into several-hours-long waits among the sick and injured? I just wish that the message had been that, instead of using a dead child as worst case scenario.

Thanks to Bury Free Press (from my ancestral homeland, BTW) for the tip.