Debenhams brushes off the past, Burgess loses his Local Jewels, Loaded is spent and Foster’s will get funnier

August 23, 2010

Four thoughts on a week spent away:

1. Debenhams has irrevocably hitched itself to the voguish positioning of “natural beauty” pioneered by Unilever’s Dove – with its decision to bannish “air-brushed” fashion models. The department store has been making a number of gestures in this area recently – for example, using a size 16 and a disabled model. But this latest initiative looks definitive.

Debenham’s rallying to the cause raises some embarrassing issues for other elements of the fashion industry which, shall we say, have been less forthcoming on the permissible limits of artifice in projecting an advertising image both unrealistic and unattainable. L’Oréal, for instance, seems entirely comfortable with lightening the skin pigment of rock star Beyoncé Knowles. And let’s not forget the vexed case of Cheryl Cole’s preternaturally bouncy hair extensions, which featured in an Elvive campaign. The Advertising Standards Authority gave Cheryl a clean bill of health. But I cannot help thinking this was a wrong call, out of step with the times. What Dove and Debenhams are doing is the thin edge of a wedge fast being driven into a post-production fixated fashion industry.

2. Now Unilever’s “Local Jewels” really have lost their setting. The departure of Matt Burgess, UK managing director of Marmite, Peperami, Pot Noodle, Bovril and Slim-Fast, seemingly brings to a painful conclusion Unilever’s interesting Chrysalis project, which was formally dissolved last month. Like its architect James Hill, Burgess has moved elsewhere in the organisation. Details remain sketchy, but he would – lucky man – appear to be assuming responsibility for integrating the Radox, Brylcreem and Sanex brands offloaded by Sara Lee into Unilever’s skincare division. Not without a last hurrah, however. The crowd-sourced Peperami ad, described in greater detail by Louise Jack on Pitch, may not be to everyone’s taste. But it’s a wake-up call to agencies.

3. IPC’s willingness to dispose of Loaded, a nineties best-seller, is a reminder of how much the lad’s mag phenomenon has been butchered by the internet. According to the most recent Audit Bureau of Circulations figures, Loaded lost over 26% of its circulation in the last year. That may be a disaster, but it’s by no means a unique one. FHM, now owned by Bauer Media, lost about 18%; while the weeklies Zoo (Bauer again) and Nuts (IPC again) plunged 22% and 17% respectively. From Phwoar! to Uh-ah! in less than 20 years.

4. While on matters laddish, was I alone in being underwhelmed by Adam & Eve’s first stab at refashioning the Foster’s campaign? To the untutored eye, it looked very much like a seamless continuation of the hackneyed stuff that has been pouring out of M&C Saatchi these past few years. Where was the simple Big Idea the client claimed had won A&E the account?

Now we know. Simple, but brilliant. One-off remakes of some of our best-known laddish comedies – Alan Partridge and the The Fast Show have been mentioned – using where possible the original writers, producers and stars; all inexpensively posted on the internet. And all intended to build on Foster’s title sponsorship of the Edinburgh Comedy Awards and Channel 4 comedy. Let’s see how the idea catches on.

About these ads

Unison lets off steam over sexy nurses, but what about flighty attendants?

July 6, 2010

Our favourite union Unison has been getting into a terrible lather about a Head & Shoulders commercial that supposedly demeans nurses.

The offensive ad features numerous nymphettes, clad in clinging white uniforms and red high-heeled shoes, serenading the bemused male occupant of a steamy shower.

Actually, says Saatchi & Saatchi – the agency responsible for the ad – they’re not nurses at all; they’re “a cross between beauticians and dermatologists”. Mmm, since when have beauticians worn those medal watches? But I’ll let you be best judge of that.

Moving on, I’m not surprised the Advertising Standards Authority has found no grounds for a formal investigation into Unison’s complaints. As far as I know silliness is not a CAP offence.

Besides, where would it all end? Nymphettes, red high-heeled shoes and sexually suggestive behaviour readily recall another, more famous, campaign: last year’s Virgin Atlantic retro ad. Given that flight attendants are a core trade union constituency, should that be blacklisted too?

Mind you flight attendants (or “air hostesses” as we used to insensitively call them) have every right to apoplexy over this raunchy little number from Russian budget airline Avianova:


ASA rebukes Asda over phony 100-day George clothing range guarantee

July 5, 2010

The Advertising Standards Authority will next week officially reprimand Asda for broadcasting exaggerated and misleading advertising – an ironic counterpoint to the supermarket’s successful challenge to Tesco advertising on one of the self-same grounds last week.

The complaint was about a TV ad – agency Fallon – featuring a 100-day guarantee being offered by the clothing range George at Asda. In the ad, the voiceover states: “At George, we know what makes a difference; the quality and feel of the fabric, the stylish cut, the stitching, colours that stay colourful, extensive testing and the finer details. And that’s why at George, we now offer a one hundred day quality guarantee on all our clothes, so you can enjoy quality that lasts. Yes, that’s George, exclusively at Asda.”

The complainant suggested the ad was misleading because the guarantee was a superfluous gimmick; consumers are already offered a longer period to return faulty items under the Sale of Goods Act.

Asda responded by claiming that the 100-day guarantee enhanced the rights of the consumer beyond the Sale of Goods Act, by covering not only faults but issues with quality. It also argued the guarantee encompassed a 100-day “cooling off” period during which consumers could return any item of clothing if for any reason they did not like what they had bought.

The advertising watchdog found fault with Asda on several grounds. It said the Sale of Goods Act required sold goods to be of satisfactory quality as well as fault-free and, under that legislation, a consumer had 6 years to bring an action for breach of contract; in addition, for the first six months the onus was on the seller if a consumer found fault with quality.

It said the ad failed to make mention of any 100-day “cooling off” period. Asda has been ordered not to show the ad in its present form.


Now’s the time for you Coke folk to take a sickie

April 19, 2010

Unabashed by a reprimand from the Advertising Standards Authority last autumn, Coca-Cola’s Glaceau Vitamin Water is again courting controversy, this time with an on-label promotion encouraging employees to take a “sickie”.

Surprise, surprise, it has garnered quite a bit of “edgy” publicity – in the fun-loving tradition of the brand. Most of it courtesy of those stuffy people at the Forum of Private Business – representing self-important SMEs – who have got themselves in a lather over the £12bn that lost working days cost the UK economy annually. Even lawyers have shown an interest – proof positive that this one should run and run.

But don’t worry, all this carefree irresponsibility in the service of “irreverence” doesn’t mean a thing. We have Coke’s word for that. “This is clearly a tongue-in-cheek reference, very much in keeping with the humorous tone that Glaceau Vitamin Water has adopted with consumers right from its launch…We are not seriously suggesting people should call in sick when they are not and, on pack, we state, ‘taking a sickie is very, very naughty.’”

So that’s all right then: complete exoneration from responsibility. I’m sure the ASA will buy that one when someone contacts it with a complaint. And just to check that Coke really does see the joke in the same enlightened way as the rest of us, I have a modest proposal. Why don’t some employees at Coca-Cola GB test the water, so to speak, by reporting in “sick” over the next few days? After all, they’ve got the perfect excuse. All this atomised volcanic ash descending from the upper atmosphere could be playing havoc with our health, especially if we’re a bit asthmatic. And the beauty of it is, no one’s going to know whether we’re telling the truth or not. Just like the ever-elusive ’24 hour bug’ handily recommended on the Glaceau Vitamin Water label! That should give HR a laugh.

Silly idea, eh? Not unlike the brand’s “irreverent” posturing.


Pre-election COI campaigns get the third degree

March 26, 2010

Call it coincidence, but events are conspiring to make COI spend – pre-election – a hotter topic than it should be.

First there was the unfortunate reminder that public information advertising expenditure has soared to pole position in the past year, comfortably ahead of Procter & Gamble’s. COI increased its spend by 13%, while P&G has cut its own by an identical percentage, according to Nielsen. All in the public, as opposed to the Labour Party’s, interest no doubt: but scarcely proof positive that HMG is cutting back in these straitened times, unlike the rest of us.

Then there was the news that the Advertising Standards Authority has had to admonish a department of state for the second time in a few days. On this occasion, it was Honest Al at the Home Office who had transgressed.

Hallo, Hallo

Apparently, he has been putting it about that neighbourhood bobbies will be spending “80%” of their time on the beat (especially in marginal constituencies). Not so, says the ASA, which banned the broadcast ad on three counts – observing in passing that it “does not make clear the commitment would not necessarily be delivered” – ie, the claim is pure propaganda.

The ban comes hot on the heels of another ASA reprimand, this time to Ed Miliband’s department of energy and climate change (DECC), which had been caught sensationalising climate change. A related broadcast ad, highlighting the apocalyptic effects of excessive CO2 emissions, is currently being investigated by Ofcom on the grounds that it looks suspiciously like a politically motivated campaign being aired just before a general election.

As if…


ASA puts top greenwash perpetrator in the dock – HMG

March 17, 2010

Much self-congratulation at the Committee of Advertising Practice, which formulates the advertising regulatory code, and the Advertising Standards Authority, which enacts it, after steering through a comprehensive update of the code, that will come into force later this year.

News of their success could not have broken at a more propitious time.

The most eye-catching element in the new package is a promised crackdown on greenwash. Nothing is better guaranteed to get the public hot under the collar than bogus science used to imbue an advertising message with cheap charisma. And, as luck would have it, the ASA has just been given a prime opportunity to pillory one of its principal purveyors, in a magisterial display of the potency and impartiality of the self-regulatory system. The perpetrator in question is no less an organisation than HMG, or rather Ed Miliband’s part of it, the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Climate change claptrap?

Sent down from the dock in disgrace were two press ads – part of a much wider £6m campaign – that used nursery rhymes to sensationalise a message about climate change. The ASA found that the language used to describe a future world beset by violent storms, long droughts and severe heatwaves “should have been phrased more tentatively.” Somehow, I don’t think careful use of the subjunctive mood would have had the same impact, even in the hands of skilled copywriters.

But the ASA is here addressing a wider issue than the legalistic application of language. Climate science has been forced on the defensive by an unfortunate cocktail of conspiracy and cock-up. Last year eminent climatologist Dr Phil Jones admitted that he had effaced certain inconvenient statistics which failed to fit his own dramatic theory of change.  Meanwhile, the august InterGovernment Panel on Climate Change has been forced to eat humble pie after it was revealed that its authoritative claim the Himalayan glaciers will melt away by 2035 was completely erroneous.

If the science is that flaky, what business has government being so categorical in its public service campaigns? One answer may be: electioneering. The equally controversial TV version of the DECC campaign has so far escaped the censor’s pen, but has become mired in controversy of a different sort.

Ofcom, the media regulator, is currently looking into 700 complaints that the commercial was, in effect, a form of (illegal) political advertising aimed at influencing public opinion ahead of a general election. Proving, or disproving, that charge will be extremely difficult since, unlike the effect of drink on driving, or of a high fat, sugar and salt intake on health, the facts of climatology are not open to strict empirical investigation.


Brussels has more muscle than health cheats like Coke

October 7, 2009

VitaminwaterThe Advertising Standards Authority’s comprehensive rejection of Coca-Cola’s Glaceau Vitamin Water advertising campaign highlights an unappetising facet of the soft drinks giant’s communications strategy. The rejected health claims in the ads reveal an underlying attitude which is at best naive about health trends, and at worst downright cynical.

The key problem is the positioning of the Glaceau range as something healthy. It is not. As the ASA pointed out, no 500ml bottle of a soft drink which contains 26% of our recommended daily allowance of sugar could reasonably be considered healthy. Coke sought to get around this inconvenient truth by exploiting the so-called functional food platform. The drinks are vitamin-enhanced, therefore they must be healthy. And what health benefits they apparently confer! Drink this stuff and you can kiss goodbye to the doctor’s surgery, because you’ll remain in rude good health. One ad also suggested that Glaceau is more nutritious than Brussels sprouts (“more muscles than brussels”), though when challenged Coke rather childishly tried to pretend the slogan was an esoteric reference to Belgian action-hero Jean-Claude van Damme.

Here in action is a positioning tactic beloved of the embattled processed food industry. Rather than addressing saturated levels of, say, sugar and salt, the manufacturers seek to bypass the vexed issue of obesity by injecting their products with “scientifically-proven” healthy additives distilled in the food laboratory. A good case in point (which I recently touched upon in a column) is the breakfast cereals sector which has studiously avoided bringing down sugar levels by jumping on the neutraceutical bandwagon.

Then again, Coke’s response was pretty typical when rumbled. It meant no harm it said, the ads were just ‘humorous and irreverent’. Who could be so po-faced as to object to a bit of fun? It’s akin to the yob’s excuse: “Me and the lads was just ‘avin’ a larf” ; and about as convincing.

This is wake-up time for Coke and other purveyors of debatably healthy foods masquerading as something diametrically the opposite. By all means market them as indulgence or convenience products, but don’t play the health card. The game’s up. The Euro health police are on to you, and they won’t let up. Brussels, I’m afraid, really does have more muscles.


American Apparel at it again

September 2, 2009

American ApparelShould our arbiter of advertising standards, the ASA, have denied American Apparel the oxygen of publicity by ignoring its latest advertising provocation?

After all Vice, the free magazine in which the offending ad appeared, is a minority interest targeting 18 to 34 year-olds – with an estimated UK circulation of only 80,000. Controversy, as the title suggests, is inherent in its nature. Sample of content: The Vice Guide to Shagging Muslims.

Arguably all that the ASA has done by banning AA’s ad is bring it to a much wider audience. With the result that the “class unisex Flex Fleece zip hoody, now available in nearly 20 colours”  – which young Ryan so fetchingly sports on her otherwise scantily-clad body – will fly off the shelves as never before.

This is a damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t situation for the regulator. American Apparel is a sophisticated advertiser adept at leveraging the rules to its own advantage. As I pointed out in a previous post, its colourful owner Dov Charney has taken a leaf out of the Oliviero Toscani/Benetton book of studied controversy, dedicated to garnering acres of free publicity.

The ASA banned AA’s ad on the grounds that the model in question, appeared “young and vulnerable and the (ad) could be seen to sexualise a child.” In fact, Ryan (real name, apparently) is 23 years old – even if she has been made up to look as if she is going on 15. Then again, the ASA – while condemning the sequence of images in the ad as “provocative with the model exposing progressively more skin in each photo of the series” also had to concede that the actual amount of nudity in the ad did not breach the advertising code. Which somewhat weakened its ruling.

Nevertheless, not to ban the ad could be construed as a sign of weakness or sloppiness on the part of the watchdog. In either case, it would have encouraged a recidivist like Dov Charney to greater acts of derring-do. The only way to deal with calculated trangressors like this is to toughen the code and make the penal sanctions much nastier.


Fake sex ad leaves Sprite unshaken

July 22, 2009

SpriteI’m not surprised everyone – including YouTube and the ostensible advertiser – was confused by the sexually explicit Sprite commercial until its faker, MTV director Max Isaacson, put his hand up and admitted what he had done.

These days, it’s difficult to put a sheet of censor’s paper between what’s real and what’s fake. Take those naughty Mattesons radio ads, which have just been firmly corralled in an adult watershed after complaints to the advertising regulator, the ASA. The script included such gems as:  “I’m renowned for my big sausage hot pot. People are always calling by for a bit and my husband Roger loves it.” Silly fourth-form locker room humour perhaps, but the ASA was not amused and decreed that the ads “could cause harm to children”.

Now back to Sprite and oral sex. Initial confusion over the banned commercial was caused not so much by inappropriate imagery as the fact that the production values were so good they were indistinguishable from the real thing. Isaacson’s motive? Pure self-promotion. And it’s paid off: Coke, which owns Sprite, won’t be suing it seems.

Talking of the real thing, let’s say the Sprite fake goes some way beyond the raunchy 1976 Perrier ad in explicit imagery. But as Adfreak points out, that doesn’t necessarily make it more interesting.

For more background (now that the ad has been deleted from the record by YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWr_hlxS8Ck


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 425 other followers

%d bloggers like this: