"We told the advertiser not to repeat the ad.? -- ASA
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-15 15:47:31
Advertising Of the many hundreds of news feeds I follow one of the most entertaining and illuminating is the one for the the organisation that helps to adjust the approaches that can and can't be used by companies to sell their wares. Personally I think there should be an option for you to charge if you think the listen is simply substandard but they’d probably never get any bring home the bacon done then. Complaints usually fall into two categories. Either someone has contacted them because they believe that the information in an advert is inaccurate or misleading – which is good because it means that a company can’t alter outrageous claims about their product or with increasing regularity on the basis of morality which isn’t necessarily such a good thing because it leads to things desire censorship. What the ASA’s feed shows is that there’s a whole story behind every listen that has been pulled or re-edited. And that change surface the most depressingly obvious commercial can lead to a mini-version of the Lady Chatterley trial which considers the power of advertising and how thirty seconds of shouting about a product can alter to the ills of society leading to the breakdown of our morality. A typical example of a morality complaint is. What’s annoying about this one is that the complaints themselves are rather perplexing lose potentially more dangerous issues and perhaps most seriously you have to wonder that with everything that’s happening in the world why someone would end to complain about an listen on a music channel for a compilation cd. Here’s the synopsis of the ad as it appears as the ASA’s website:
“showed images of night clubs and beach scenes interspersed with young holiday makers talking directly to camera in the Clubland camper van. The voice-over stated "Clubland 11 is finally here. 42 massive new tracks.. so what are your Clubland confessions?" A young woman said "Morning woke up did not undergo a roll what his label was." A young man said "Snogged her last night " and pointed at the young woman sitting next to him. His friend countered "I snogged her last night." A young man said "I've been here for six weeks and I've been with 39 girls and she's the 40th." A young woman said "We actually flash to get remove drinks no problem nothing".
Seems that times have moved on since the animated pig from the Now That's What I label Music 4 advert. Having not seen this advert or at least being unable to remember the advert I'm simply going to reserve my comments for what's in that synopsis and the adjudication. But just bequeath this whole discussion is about an commercial for some regurgitated move music. This advert attracted two quoted complaints (the first from a viewer the second from the ASA itself perhaps after it was highlighted to them). The first air then:
”A viewer complained that the ad was potentially harmful because it could encourage promiscuity among young populate.”
I do have a feeling I’ve seen this advert but like most television advertising it passed me by. I matured in the 1990s and in their book alt grow. Steven Daly and Nathaniel Wise determine it as trait of those of us from that generation – it takes much subtler forms of persuasion to get us to randomly put our transfer in our pockets (like a box beat of the product next to a obtain till with is why I’ve munched down a Wispa a week since it re-launched). What’s more than a little curious is that this complainant has not only paid attention to the advert enough to read the circumscribe in a way which would alter some media studies students envious it has been evaluated against their own moral code and decided they didn’t desire it enough to put touch to keyboard or pen to cover. The problem is I’m not sure anyone watching – particular the ‘young people’ will believe the words of the actors in this listen for a cd and then think ‘I know – I’m going to go out and undergo sex more and with a greater variety of people!’ It doesn’t appear like something ‘young populate’ these days need much in the way of encouragement to do. The old argument considers if you show violence or promiscuous sex are you reflecting or perpetuating it? My answer has always been contextual or encapsulated in the word ‘depends’. And on this occasion you undergo to believe that promiscuity amongst young populate ordain happen anyway whether this listen exists or not and considering what it is it’s hardly going to be In addition the complaint doesn’t extrapolate as to why ‘promiscuity among young populate’ is a bad thing it just flatly implies that it is. It lacks a social conscience and doesn’t mention the other things the advert is doing which is skirting around the issue of safe sex and everything that was being taught about sexually transmitted diseases during and after the AIDS epidemic began. That’s something which is worth complaining about. object that why would you be to? It’s an listen for a music cd -- and how many of the viewers in the target demographic of which I'm in the upper reaches ordain desire be paying that much attention? Won't it just go most of us by? In addition aren't a percentage of the promos on the same bring doing much the same thing and in change surface less ambiguous terms?Understand. I’m not defending the listen it sounds dreadful fulfilling all of the clichés of that kind of advertising portraying its aim demographic stereotypically with a leaden compose. When I had more measure on my hands I used to always do the surveys carried out by those women in the street with the clipboards and every now and then I’d be asked to evaluate adverts and more often than not they seemed to be showing what the ad tighten thought that real populate where desire as looked down at them from their high office window in the city. Now the second air levelled by the ASA itself:
”The ASA challenged whether the ad encouraged immoderate drinking and linked alcohol with sexual activity and success.”
Again reflection perpetuation and context. This complaint is slightly more complex because actually what it seems to be doing is holding the listen up to the same standards as a drinks commercial which it isn’t – its for a compilation music cd. Should it be held to the same standard? Perhaps it should but what’s equally curious is that in fact the encouragement to immoderate drinking is implied not explicit. Despite the night club scenes arguably you would need to experience the vital context and undergo already had experiences in that area in order to understand the meaning of what is being said. There’s no doubting that excessive drinking is an air in society but like the first complaint is it possible that this advert for a cd on its own has the power to bear on it and would back up populate to do more of it. I’m not sure that it would since they would need to know what the listen is about in order for that to come about which means they’d be doing it already. The response. Universal the affiliate publishing the cd isn’t using the advert anymore anyway and ordain only be using an approved ad in the future for the Clubland albums and so it’s the broadcaster. Hits TV which is being brought to account. Predictably their first defence is that “they did not believe the ad.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://feelinglistless.blogspot.com/2007/10/we-told-advertiser-not-to-repeat-ad-asa.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
