Selling a bicycle race with a sexual assault joke

The Guardian's Suze Clemitson reports that an infamous sexual assault on the podium of the cycling event in 2013 has been parodied in a poster for the E3 Harelbeke race in Flanders.

The poster, apparently, reads “Who squeezes them in Harelbeke?” Har, har, har.

Meanwhile, assault victim Maja Leye, a "flower girl" who was groped by a man named Peter Sagan as she planted a traditional kiss on the cheek of Tour of Flanders winner Fabian Cancellara, says she was "frozen to the spot” in shock, and struggled not to react to avoid further embarrassment.

The problem with the poster, obviously, is that it communicates that unwanted sexual touching is a joke, and shouldn't be taken very seriously.

Ms. Clemitson reserves her most potent ire for the unknown agency behind the creative: "They’re like a bunch of little boys giggling at a glimpse of boob or arse, virtually masturbating over the idea of their campaigns going viral."

Well, here's your international attention, guys: You're assholes.

G20 climate change ads rejected by Australian airport #onmyagenda

A billboard that was supposed to greet G20 leaders as they arrived for their next meeting in Brisbane, Australia, has been rejected by the airport authority.

The Guardian reports that the ad, featuring a farmer whose vineyard was destroyed by extreme high temperatures, was turned down because climate change was deemed "too political" for posting inside the airport.

A related article notes that the Australian government was reluctant to but climate change on the G20 meeting agenda, but reluctantly did so only after pressure from the United States and the European Union.

The rejection is a bit of a scandal, too, as it was revealed that two directors on the board of Brisbane Airport Corporation have interests in fossil fuel companies. (The BAC says they had no influence on the decision.)

Australia has been particularly hard hit by rising global temperatures, but Australian PM Tony Abbott has been accused of being a climate change skeptic. So perhaps this issue is "political" insofar as politicians are making it so.

Another billboard will be erected on the road to the G20 meeting. It features firefighter Dean McNulty against a backdrop of damage representative of the increasingly common bush fires in drought-ravaged areas of Australia.

The #onmyagenda campaign is a partnership between Oxfam, Greenpeace, 350.0rg, WWF, Earth Hour, GetUp, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and 1 Million Women.

British insurance company hits PR paydirt with banned ad

The Guardian reports that a British insurance firm has been busted by the Advertising Standards Authority for an ad that is "degrading to women".

They post it in censored form, but the ASA paints us a picture: "Underneath was a picture of a woman wearing only men's boxer briefs and holding a D-SLR camera to each breast."

So here's an artist's impression:

([ ])([ ])  

The company's defence was the classic "we're equal opportunity exploiters!"

"Versatile Insurance Professionals Ltd (Versatile) said Aaduki were well known in the photographic market for the ‘Aaduki Boys’, a group of male models used to advertise the brand at exhibitions and conventions and who also featured heavily in their marketing campaigns. They said they had run a series of ads across the specialist photographic press featuring the male models in their trademark blue shorts, which were designed to amuse the reader with ‘tongue in cheek’ innuendo much like the Carry On films from the 1970s. Versatile provided copies of the ads in the series, which they believed were suggestive and naughty without being obscene."

"Versatile said the idea behind the “Confused and don’t know where to look ad?” was that they now had a girl wearing the blue shorts instead of a boy, and aimed to engage the male photographer that did not normally find their ads attractive. Versatile said they did not believe the ad was sexist or degrading to women, and pointed out that many photographic magazines featured female models, some of whom would be completely naked and a large number of whom would be topless. They said they believed the ad was no more suggestive than models in the tabloid press. Versatile argued that the ad needed to be viewed in the context of the other ads in the campaign, and that rather than being sexist or degrading to women the ad actually addressed the inequalities of their previous advertising that had focused on the male models."

Whatever. The fact is, there is no downside to this ruling for Aaduki. The target market of "amateur photographers" (don't ever GIS that) would have been unfazed by the nudity and suggestiveness of the ad, and even if they thought it was tacky they'll see the brand as a victim of nanny state censorship now.

This is why censorship in advertising usually has unintended consequences, making heroes out of what are really unimaginative and vulgar advertisers. Better to expose their tactics and mock their cynicism, in my opinion. Education, not bannination.

Thanks to @adsoftheworld for sharing the link.

How to get a great ad placement in mainstream media for free

Just get it "banned".

As The Media Blog points out, by getting the ad above rejected by several media outlets, Paddy Power managed to have it reproduced in full as editorial content in The Guardian and elsewhere.

It's the oldest trick in the book, and as you can see it doesn't even take any creativity to do it.

Bum lookers!

Here is a very clever viral ad from New Zealand (filmed in LA) that aims to prove that men and women alike cannot avert their eyes from a really well-turned bum in a good pair of jeans:



You might have laughed. You might have been offended. But do you feel like buying a new pair of jeans? And which brand?

This video was produced by Levi's,  designed to promote Levi's Curve ID range for curvy women. But you don't know that, unless you read marketing blogs or mainstream media, or cared enough to follow up on Google.

According to SMH, Levi's doesn't even know if it will work:

"The aim of this campaign is for people to connect with the brand and walk away feeling good about their body,'' said Levi Strauss senior director of public relations Alexa Rudin. ''We need to look at how we convert that into sales. We have to be strategic and long term about it.''

That is certainly sound. But The Guardian's Arwa Mahdawi, while not offended by the ad, thought it was a little too "stealth":

"Personally I think it's a great idea and an entertaining video. It's just a pity that Levi's didn't have the guts to put its name to it to begin with. Even now the jeans company is quick to point out that the clip, created by the New Zealand agency Colenso BBDO, was an "experiment without any creative direction from us". To me, that translates as, er, we're not sure how people are going to react, so we're keeping a safe distance. But if a safe distance means that everyone misses the fact it was a Levi's ad, then the exercise was pretty much futile."

What do you think? If the content was branded, would it have been more effective as marketing? Or would cynical viewers have been less likely to watch if they felt they were being "sold to"?

Or, do you just want me to shut up and embed the "making of" video?



Have a happy and safe weekend.

In other words, "watch your ass..."