Saturday, 13 December 2014

Banned Ad - That's why I am posting the link to it, if for no other reason...

Here

Nanny state rules OK.

My latest blogpost: Banned Ad - That's why I am posting the link to it, if for no other reason...Tweet this! Posted by Lola at 13:12

13 comments:

Tim Almond said...

But the ASA aren't part of the state, nor do they have the power to ban anything. They are an industry body that advertisers and media companies join and pay for.

The advertisers pay for it to look after their interests. One of these interests is that it keeps government from creating a regulator that would be bureaucratic and slow - they stop advertisers making ads that will offend huge numbers of people. But the second purpose is to provide PR for advertisers' clients. An ad getting "banned" creates PR for the company, especially where the "ban" is for the sort of reasons that The Righteous find offensive, but which their potential customers don't (Club 18-30 used to regularly get ads banned that basically said that you'll get to do a lot of shagging on an 18-30). You think people who create these campaigns are so incompetent that they keep falling foul of the ASA rules? ;)

My guess, the person who phoned up the ASA about this is someone at Jaguar's marketing company. It's still on their website, which is probably now getting lots of hits from people curious about it.

13 December 2014 at 15:30
Mark Wadsworth said...

It's a really boring advertisement.

It strikes me that most advertising can only possibly appeal to people with a mental age of 10 or under. This is a good example.

13 December 2014 at 18:14
Tim Almond said...

Mark,

I liked the one with Ben Kingsley, Tom Hiddleston and Mark Strong. Pointing out the whole thing of Britons being bad guys (after the cold war finished).

That said, I wouldn't buy a Jaguar. Too much paying for a name, so money wasted on me.

13 December 2014 at 18:28
TheBoilingFrog said...

@TheStigler

But the ASA aren't part of the state

I'm afraid they very much are, they are part of Ofcom (and its copious offshoots) and by extension EU regulation.

...nor do they have the power to ban anything.

Yes they do, as per their own website

Our primary sanction is to have advertisements that we judge to be in breach of the Codes withdrawn and prevent them from appearing again.

http://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/FAQs.aspx#How%20can%20the%20ASA%20ban%20an%20ad%20after%20only%20one%20complaint?

And

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463219/Offensive-Paddy-Power-Pistorius-trial-ad-banned-by-ASA-as-over-5-000-people-complain

They are an industry body that advertisers and media companies join and pay for.

True they are a regulatory body that is paid for by advertisers but it's not an option to 'join'.

13 December 2014 at 18:48
DBC Reed said...

With Mark on this.Cannot understand how cars are sold on speed and glamour.Going fast in cars on public roads rapidly loses it appeal as you grow older: like staying up late.The most glamorous lifestyles I have experienced have involved walking between bars ,shops, cinemas, galleries, beaches, swimming pools etc with the occasional lift on an open tram .

13 December 2014 at 20:41
benj said...

Shame they didn't air this one.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1466223/Ofcom-bans-derogatory-faggot-advert.html

13 December 2014 at 20:46
Tim Almond said...

Boiling Frog,

No, they aren't part of Ofcom.

No, they don't have the power to ban advertising. Go look, and find me a single people of statute that says they do. There's even people like Which complaining about that fact. And that Paddy Power story is exactly what I'm talking about. Paddy Power run bets like that for their PR value... to get people talking about Paddy Power. They withdrew the ad because they were never going to show it again anyway, because its purpose was only to get a news item.

And yes, it is optional. Again, show me the regulatory power that says that an advertiser has to pay them.

13 December 2014 at 20:54
TheBoilingFrog said...

The Stigler

There is a statutory duty placed on Ofcom to maintain standards in broadcast advertising. However, better regulation principles that were included in the Communications Act 2003 placed a duty upon Ofcom to pursue alternative forms of regulation where practical. Ofcom took advantage of this provision and established a co-regulatory partnership with the ASA in 2004.

In practice, this means that the ASA system is responsible on a day-to-day basis for broadcast advertising content standards.

The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) is responsible for writing and maintaining the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising, but Ofcom retains overall sign-off on major changes to the Code. The ASA is responsible for administering the Code, but is able to refer broadcasters to Ofcom for further action.

http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/About-regulation/Co-regulation-of-broadcast-advertising.aspx

And significant overlap within the state:

http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Our-team/ASA-Council/ASA-Council-biogs.aspx#Lord%20Smith

13 December 2014 at 21:09
Lola said...

Well all, I confess, I quite like cars and I quite like Jags.
But, and it's a big 'but' driving fast on the public highway is stupid. Anyway, it's not even possible to drive truly fast on the public highway, not as 'fast' as you can (and in fact must) drive on a race track. Anyone who drives on the public highway like you (I?) would on a track, needs locking up.
So I would not buy an F Type as it's just daft. It's just showing off, 'look at me, I've got more money than you'. Sad.
But to ban an ad. like that is equally daft.

13 December 2014 at 21:45
Tim Almond said...

Boiling Frog,

None of that says they are part of Ofcom, nor that they have powers to ban ads, only that they work with Ofcom and can refer ads to them.

DBC,

Completely agree. I used to work in a small market town near me, and always preferred taking the bus to driving . I got to look out of the window at the countryside, read a book if I wanted to. I could pop to the pub after work for a couple of beers too.

It's why I drive a 13 year old Renault. If I buy a fairly new Mondeo (my choice when this finally has to go), it's going to cost me £12K. I've better things to do with £4K a year than have a slightly nicer way to get to work.

13 December 2014 at 21:49
Lola said...

TS. Mondeo. Good choice. I bought a 2.0L Mondeo Estate in 1997. Used it until 2008 then gave it to my No 2 daughter. She ran it for about 2 years until some clown drove into it in a car park and 'wrote it off'. It had done 175,000 miles with regular maintenance only. It was on the original clutch. The only bit of the exhaust that had been replaced was the lambda sensor.
My kind of budget motoring,

13 December 2014 at 22:07
Lola said...

TS. oh forgot to say it was an ex Ford Direct car which I bought for £11,250 under a year old and with 17,000 on the clock. New then they were about £17k

13 December 2014 at 22:09
Tim Almond said...

Lola,

I have a height problem - I'm 6'3" and my choice of cars is limited as a result. Often, I'm not very comfortable for leg or head room.

I had a Mondeo for a weekend and got me and 2 adults and a child comfortably in it. And it was nice to drive.

14 December 2014 at 20:10

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)