More hysterical censorship from the UK

Source

This transit ad, from the UK's Marks & Spencer chain, has been banned by the kingdom's ad regulator for being too sexy.

From their ruling:

"We noted the complainants’ concerns that this ad, displayed on buses, was likely to be seen by children. We considered that most children viewing the ad would understand that the poster was advertising lingerie and, as such, the models would not be fully clothed. We considered that the pose of the woman lying on the bed was only mildly sexual in nature, and as a result was unlikely to be seen as unsuitable to be seen by children. However, we considered that the pose of the woman kneeling on the bed was overtly sexual, as her legs were wide apart, her back arched and one arm above her head with the other touching her thigh. We also noted that the woman in this image wore stockings. We considered that the image was of an overtly sexual nature and was therefore unsuitable for untargeted outdoor display, as it was likely to be seen by children. We concluded that the ad was socially irresponsible."

If you read this blog, you know my stand on this. Using sex to sell everything is just lazy. Objectifying women in ads is insulting. But those are my opinions, not things I want regulated.

I honestly believe that we, as consumers, need to decide for ourselves what we are willing to tolerate from advertisers. Sexual exploitation of women in ads is so commonplace, in ads aimed at both men and women, that I'm surprised it has any breakthrough potential at all anymore. My 7-year-old son, just last weekend, was stopped in his tracks by a larger-than-life POP poster at Sears showing a woman in see through underwear. But that stopping power wears off. (In his case, he just blurted out "booby covers!" and laughed.)

You can choose to complain to a business about their ads. Or you can choose to not do business with them. You can choose to complain to the owner of the media. But this knee-jerk banning that's happening with the ASA in the UK really seems over the top to me. Plus, it only works into the offending advertisers hands by giving people a reason to take notice of their ads.

Generally, in social marketing, we feel that it's more effective to recognize and reinforce good behaviour than punish and shame bad. Imagine if organizations like the ASA put more of their efforts into celebrating the advertisers who are "socially responsible",  giving them the free PR while the naughty ones languished in the oversaturated sexy soup of the ad landscape. Wouldn't that be nice?

Via The Drum and The Telegraph

UK to treat ambush marketers like terrorists at London 2012?

"Ambush Marketing" is a popular stunt by underdog brands who hire people to infiltrate public and sporting events, then do something provocative to get attention. One of the most infamous is Golden Palace, who sent a male streaker out on the field during the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast.

Not that I want to see this, mind you.

Some of us find this amusing. Official sponsors who have paid to be upstaged by some naked guy do not. And when it comes to the Olympic Games, with multi-million dollar international sponsorships at stake, the lack of amusement can have an impact on the very fabric of the legal system.

The Dim Dim Girls must be stopped at all costs!

According to The Drum:

Revised legislation has been issued this week stating that exhibitionists baring their flesh for marketing stunts in and around 2012 Olympic venues could face criminal charges and fines of up to £20,000 in the magistrates court.

CEOs, marketing directors and other senior staff of brands appearing in "ambush marketing" in the vicinity of Olympic venues will be presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence by proving that they had no knowledge of the activity or that they took reasonable steps to prevent it happening.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) noted the risk of human bodies being used for ambush advertising following concerns raised in a recent consultation process. It has promised to "make additional changes to prohibit advertising on the human body". It says the legislation is "reasonable and proportionate", and that the matters a person is required to prove in their defence are "entirely within their knowledge".

Prove your innocence? Are they serious?

Now anyone with a financial or personal reason to cause legal trouble for marketing high-ups can just draw a logo on their bum, whip off their pants, and let the charges fly. London-based advertising lawyer Nick Johnson is quoted: "Exactly how is a CEO, a marketing director or a legal director supposed to prove they had no knowledge at all of an infringing act featuring their brand?"

And what happened to The Man having to prove guilt? Usually these kinds of draconian legislation are enacted to fight terrorists, not to protect brand integrity or sponsorship deals.

via

I'm not defending ambush marketing. It is not playing fair. But this kind of legal pandering to the Olympics and big brands? Bullshit.

F'd Ad Fridays: Horrifying Halloween candy

Their barftastic  sweetness isn't just for Easter anymore.

The Drum quotes a Cadbury Brand Manager:

“After a very successful trial in 2010, Cadbury Screme Egg is back, bringing with it some gruesome gooiness to the Halloween season. Consumers will enjoy its unexpectedly green yolk, giving them the opportunity to enjoy the classic taste of a Creme Egg out of the usual Easter season.”

You think this is Halloween candy, Cadbury? No, THIS is Halloween candy:

From Fast Co. (a couple of years back):

"in the confections of Stephen J. Shanabrook, sweet treats turn into gruesome mementos of contemporary life. The candies you see above were cast from the fatal wounds of anonymous cadavers. According to Eat Me Daily, Shanabrook says the truffles skate 'very close to the edge, the forbidden place for artists.'"

If you really want a "screme", imagine dropping one of those in a kid's Halloween bag.