Save the Children have just shown an advert on ITV1 showing an African woman seemingly actually giving birth, with the slogan "Their first day on Earth is often their last."
WAY too far with the shock value.
Utterly vile isn't it, i'm more concerned about the problems in this country.
They jumped the shark with that and i bet the next begging advert will be even more repulsive and shocking
Adverts seem to be constantly asking us for money. We should save tigers, save the rainforest, save people in various countries, give money for dogs to be rescued, and the RSPCA, help people who live miles from any water, and and and ---- it goes on and on. Give just 3 pound a month, etc.
The trouble is, after a while, you get so irritated you don't want to give money for anything and the more they beg the more irritating it gets. As for people in Africa, nothing ever seems to change. My Grandmother told me when she was young they were collecting for Africa.
Adverts seem to be constantly asking us for money. We should save tigers, save the rainforest, save people in various countries, give money for dogs to be rescued, and the RSPCA, help people who live miles from any water, and and and ---- it goes on and on. Give just 3 pound a month, etc.
The trouble is, after a while, you get so irritated you don't want to give money for anything and the more they beg the more irritating it gets. As for people in Africa, nothing ever seems to change. My Grandmother told me when she was young they were collecting for Africa.
You forgot the Donkeys! I agree though, plus, they're usually teamed up with the obligatory nasally-whine of a twee cover version in the background!
I've just seen an advert for a diet called 'Jane Plan', she say's "do you want a diet that really works?" in the sickliest most horrible voice I've ever heard - I never want to see that ad again! >:(
Save the Children have just shown an advert on ITV1 showing an African woman seemingly actually giving birth, with the slogan "Their first day on Earth is often their last."
WAY too far with the shock value.
The content of the ad doesn't bother me, but the content does. We're being asked to help save children that would die ordinarily, that we will then be asked to help feed and treat with medical care. I love children, but surely the answer is to send money to educate the people in birth control.
The Save the Children ad is horrific, yes its important to highlight the issue and raise awareness but is there a need for shock tactics? What about those poor parents who have had still borns? How would they feel about this ad? Also those of us who have had a traumatic birth it brings it all back!
The content of the ad doesn't bother me, but the content does. We're being asked to help save children that would die ordinarily, that we will then be asked to help feed and treat with medical care. I love children, but surely the answer is to send money to educate the people in birth control.
Agree with this, they need to address the key issue which is birth control.
I know it's more than likely been mentioned but Flora and the wrestling advert!
I find it awful and each time it's on I mute it . The line about the kid thinks his mum is good at wrestling ewww to the max ! Yet it seems to be on loads or am I only noticing because I hate it so much ?
I know it's more than likely been mentioned but Flora and the wrestling advert!
I find it awful and each time it's on I mute it . The line about the kid thinks his mum is good at wrestling ewww to the max ! Yet it seems to be on loads or am I only noticing because I hate it so much ?
Makes me cringe too, I also hate the way the way the kid say's "AnniNversary", it's so scripted!
Adverts seem to be constantly asking us for money. We should save tigers, save the rainforest, save people in various countries, give money for dogs to be rescued, and the RSPCA, help people who live miles from any water, and and and ---- it goes on and on. Give just 3 pound a month, etc.
The trouble is, after a while, you get so irritated you don't want to give money for anything and the more they beg the more irritating it gets. As for people in Africa, nothing ever seems to change. My Grandmother told me when she was young they were collecting for Africa.
African nations will solve the problem of poverty, infant mortality, drought and famine by persecuting gays.
I'd rather save tigers than have anymore money sent to that wretched homophobic continent.
For me, the current ad for Cheerios has re-defined the words nauseating, repugnant and bratfest.
If the only tiny bit of revenge I can have is is to avoid all products with a Nestlé logo on them...it'll just have to do.
The Save the Children ad is horrific, yes its important to highlight the issue and raise awareness but is there a need for shock tactics? What about those poor parents who have had still borns? How would they feel about this ad? Also those of us who have had a traumatic birth it brings it all back!
I have to admit that I thought that those complaining about this advert going to far with the shock tactics were being a bit over critical of what is in effect a charity advert. And by the way I am no fan of the charity adverts (there is/was a thread here on digitalspy, that I contributed to, that was about charity advert on tv - http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1899574).
I have always thought that (certainly over the past 10 years or so) that the number of charity advert have became too much and therefore some people, like myself, believe that the margins and positive effect and financial benefits of advertising must nowadays be so small.
Therefore I had a look at this new advert on Youtube and I was absolutely flabbergasted. Now putting aside the aims of the charity and just looking at this commerical from a OFCOM/ASA broadcasting standpoint (and even factoring in the fact that the ASA will be more lenient to Public Information Films and Charity adverts) and it is safe to assume that this advert will be taken off the air on the grounds that PlasticGob has said above (ie causing emotional distress).
The only thing is that a lot of advertisers know that the ASA can only act retrospectively and that the process of adjudicating on complaints can take a number of weeks. Therefore any advertiser of any service or product that wants to go for the 'shock' impact tactic can just get the advert past clearing and then only air the advert for a few times over the course of 1 or 2 weeks and all that will happen if the ASA decides that the advert was in breach of broadcasting rules then the ASA will official warn the advertiser that "This commerical must not be broadcast again in its current form". - I have simplified this a little in that the most obviously shocking adverts will not (at least should not) get through clearing and make it to air, and the ASA has additional powers it can use on advertiser who repeatedly break the rules.
I have to admit that I thought that those complaining about this advert going to far with the shock tactics were being a bit over critical of what is in effect a charity advert. And by the way I am no fan of the charity adverts (there is/was a thread here on digitalspy, that I contributed to, that was about charity advert on tv - http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1899574).
I have always thought that (certainly over the past 10 years or so) that the number of charity advert have became too much and therefore some people, like myself, believe that the margins and positive effect and financial benefits of advertising must nowadays be so small.
Therefore I had a look at this new advert on Youtube and I was absolutely flabbergasted. Now putting aside the aims of the charity and just looking at this commerical from a OFCOM/ASA broadcasting standpoint (and even factoring in the fact that the ASA will be more lenient to Public Information Films and Charity adverts) and it is safe to assume that this advert will be taken off the air on the grounds that PlasticGob has said above (ie causing emotional distress).
The only thing is that a lot of advertisers know that the ASA can only act retrospectively and that the process of adjudicating on complaints can take a number of weeks. Therefore any advertiser of any service or product that wants to go for the 'shock' impact tactic can just get the advert past clearing and then only air the advert for a few times over the course of 1 or 2 weeks and all that will happen if the ASA decides that the advert was in breach of broadcasting rules then the ASA will official warn the advertiser that "This commerical must not be broadcast again in its current form". - I have simplified this a little in that the most obviously shocking adverts will not (at least should not) get through clearing and make it to air, and the ASA has additional powers it can use on advertiser who repeatedly break the rules.
Rumours suggest ITV are going to ban this advert from airing on their channels rather than wait for OFCOM/ASA rulings, if true the its a step in the right direction.
Rumours suggest ITV are going to ban this advert from airing on their channels rather than wait for OFCOM/ASA rulings, if true the its a step in the right direction.
Bloody right they should ban it the ad oversteps its boundary by FAR. The usual begging ad "if she could she'd tell you how starving she is give us money" are bad enough
For me, the current ad for Cheerios has re-defined the words nauseating, repugnant and bratfest.
If the only tiny bit of revenge I can have is is to avoid all products with a Nestlé logo on them...it'll just have to do.
Oh!!! I so agree cherriosssss. It really would put me off buying cherriossssss..:(
You forgot the Donkeys! I agree though, plus, they're usually teamed up with the obligatory nasally-whine of a twee cover version in the background!
I've just seen an advert for a diet called 'Jane Plan', she say's "do you want a diet that really works?" in the sickliest most horrible voice I've ever heard - I never want to see that ad again! >:(
Bloody right they should ban it the ad oversteps its boundary by FAR. The usual begging ad "if she could she'd tell you how starving she is give us money" are bad enough
I go by the rule if Charities can afford TV advertising & or pay directors 6 figure salaries then they have too much money & don't need any more, i can't switch over quick enough as soon as these adds come on
Comments
Utterly vile isn't it, i'm more concerned about the problems in this country.
They jumped the shark with that and i bet the next begging advert will be even more repulsive and shocking
The trouble is, after a while, you get so irritated you don't want to give money for anything and the more they beg the more irritating it gets. As for people in Africa, nothing ever seems to change. My Grandmother told me when she was young they were collecting for Africa.
You forgot the Donkeys! I agree though, plus, they're usually teamed up with the obligatory nasally-whine of a twee cover version in the background!
I've just seen an advert for a diet called 'Jane Plan', she say's "do you want a diet that really works?" in the sickliest most horrible voice I've ever heard - I never want to see that ad again! >:(
The content of the ad doesn't bother me, but the content does. We're being asked to help save children that would die ordinarily, that we will then be asked to help feed and treat with medical care. I love children, but surely the answer is to send money to educate the people in birth control.
This a thousands times!
Educating them on safer sex is better
Let me tell you 'bout an accident I had
I heard the ad, (it made her mad)
I punched the lad (it made her glad)
Agree with this, they need to address the key issue which is birth control.
I find it awful and each time it's on I mute it . The line about the kid thinks his mum is good at wrestling ewww to the max ! Yet it seems to be on loads or am I only noticing because I hate it so much ?
Makes me cringe too, I also hate the way the way the kid say's "AnniNversary", it's so scripted!
African nations will solve the problem of poverty, infant mortality, drought and famine by persecuting gays.
I'd rather save tigers than have anymore money sent to that wretched homophobic continent.
Having said that, I saw the Cilla advert today. Recruiting her or is it hur, for an ad campaign must be nearly as bad as having Katona.
If the only tiny bit of revenge I can have is is to avoid all products with a Nestlé logo on them...it'll just have to do.
I have to admit that I thought that those complaining about this advert going to far with the shock tactics were being a bit over critical of what is in effect a charity advert. And by the way I am no fan of the charity adverts (there is/was a thread here on digitalspy, that I contributed to, that was about charity advert on tv - http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1899574).
I have always thought that (certainly over the past 10 years or so) that the number of charity advert have became too much and therefore some people, like myself, believe that the margins and positive effect and financial benefits of advertising must nowadays be so small.
Therefore I had a look at this new advert on Youtube and I was absolutely flabbergasted. Now putting aside the aims of the charity and just looking at this commerical from a OFCOM/ASA broadcasting standpoint (and even factoring in the fact that the ASA will be more lenient to Public Information Films and Charity adverts) and it is safe to assume that this advert will be taken off the air on the grounds that PlasticGob has said above (ie causing emotional distress).
The only thing is that a lot of advertisers know that the ASA can only act retrospectively and that the process of adjudicating on complaints can take a number of weeks. Therefore any advertiser of any service or product that wants to go for the 'shock' impact tactic can just get the advert past clearing and then only air the advert for a few times over the course of 1 or 2 weeks and all that will happen if the ASA decides that the advert was in breach of broadcasting rules then the ASA will official warn the advertiser that "This commerical must not be broadcast again in its current form". - I have simplified this a little in that the most obviously shocking adverts will not (at least should not) get through clearing and make it to air, and the ASA has additional powers it can use on advertiser who repeatedly break the rules.
Rumours suggest ITV are going to ban this advert from airing on their channels rather than wait for OFCOM/ASA rulings, if true the its a step in the right direction.
Bloody right they should ban it the ad oversteps its boundary by FAR. The usual begging ad "if she could she'd tell you how starving she is give us money" are bad enough
I do feel for the poor donkeys
In this context (talking about a middle of the road - pun intended) car it is just crass. I hate this song now.
I can't stand the smarmy looking middle class twerps in the ad.
We all know it'll end in divorce, acrimony and debt.
Balls to you Suzuki for stealing the soul out of our lives to sell your cars.
I go by the rule if Charities can afford TV advertising & or pay directors 6 figure salaries then they have too much money & don't need any more, i can't switch over quick enough as soon as these adds come on