Top 10 complained ads
May 6th, 2009 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe ODT has the top ten complained about ads:
The 10 most complained about ads of 2008
1. Tui Beer, billboard. “Let’s take a moment this Christmas to think about Christ…Yeah Right — Tui”. (86 complaints). Settled, when withdrawn by advertiser.
2. Brandex Adventure Sports Ltd, television. Skins sportswear, touting the physicality of African-American athletes, saying they have a “warrior” mentality and “killer instinct”. (73). Upheld, racial stereotyping.
3. Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand, television. A drinking “Uncle Mark” grabs a young boy, swinging him into furniture on an “aeroplane ride”. (68). Settled, when advertiser and broadcasters resolved to show it only after 8.30pm.
4. New Zealand First, direct mail advertisement. A NZ First flyer said an anti-John Key site had been set up in the name of the ad’s recipient. (43). Not upheld.
5. Advanced Medical Institute, billboard. “Want long-lasting Sex?”, ad for nasal medication to battle premature ejaculation. (38). Upheld, did not meet due sense of social responsibility.
6. Sky Television, billboard. An ad for a Sky television programme stated, “all business considered, even from Jews”. (27). Settled, advertisement removed and an apology published.
7. Beds R Us, television. A couple searching for the perfect bed are shown kissing passionately, then the female, clad in underwear, straddles the male. (23). Settled, ad replaced after complaints that sex was being used to sell.
8. Fonterra, television. In an Anchor trim milk ad, a child tells his mother “you’re fat”, then adds, “yeah mum, you’re not fat. Nana’s fat”. (18). Not upheld, light-hearted and unlikely to cause offence.
9. Tui Beer, billboard. “Sure, I’ve got ten minutes to talk about Jehovah”. (16). No grounds to proceed, did not meet the threshold to cause serious offence.
10. Hell Pizza, direct mail. `$25 Hot as Hell” ad showed a photo of a Thai woman in high heels and a bikini, promising a Thai massage, if the offer was redeemed in Thailand on the day of purchase. (15). No grounds to proceed, as it did not meet the threshold to breach the Advertising Codes.
I wonder how many of them are on You Tube?
Related posts:
- The Electoral Act
- Ahmed Zaoui
- Electoral Commission on Tui
- Just $70 will keep a billboard alive for another day
May 6th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I read this article a day or so ago and thought at the time some people just need to grow up and/or get a hobby.
I presume (hope) the Advertsising Standards Authority is industry not taxpayer funded. Surely the punishment for offensive ads is not buying the advertised product rather than setting up a bunch hof wowsers in positions of authority.
Having said that I really like the Tui ads but dont drink Tui.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
We are all very lucky there are so many busybodies out there complaining about irrelevancies so that we can all be protected because I am unable to decide for myself.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
4.3 million NZers, more than half say they’re Christian, and 86 complaints is all that the most-hated ad in 2008 can produce?
Not that hated, I would say. Still, more than enough to shut down Tui’s right to say it.
Sad.
Sad that people who like the ad get no hearing. Sad that government feels speech is rightly restricted over such triviality. Sad that so few understand speech is the right to offend.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Ben, FREEDOM of speech includes the right to offend.
Never in my lifetime has that freedom of speech been so suppressed as it is now (and has been for nine years) in New Zealand.
The current government has made no attempt at all to reintroduce that freedom.
If the complaining bastards were made to pay upfront for their humourless whinging and whining it might be a start.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“Let’s take a moment this Christmas to think about Christ…Yeah Right — Tui”.
Vote:I had a photo of this as my desktop wall paper for a few months. And I’m a bonafide, full-fledged, narrow-minded, fundamentalist, born-again Christian!
It was clever, and not offensive to anyone with a brain.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Ross Nixon – spot on. The billboard was a comment on everybody except the people who really think about Christ at Christmas!
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Anyone got a pic of the No. 10 ad?
Sounds tasty.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
So nobody has a problem with an ad that states “all business considered, even from Jews”?
Really?
Or sex being used to sell a pizza?
Sure, I agree, some of the complaints are petty. But somewhere, you have to draw a line and say, “This is wrong. This is not what I want my son or daughter to grow up thinking is right and is the way all decent people should behave”.
Or am I wrong, and absolutely everything should be allowed, and anything goes?
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I think the most irritating ad that I have seen on Sky TV is the ad for Fatso, the DVD hire.
Vote:That stupid fellow ringing famous artists trying to sell the service. He seems so opinionated and irritating. It is repeated ad nauseum over all the Sky channels. I have resolved never to hire or buy one DVD from that source.
It isn’t offensive, simply stupid.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
graham, by your commenst above, you are no doubt the dick who complained about the radio ad that went along the lines of “Cock. Another 4 letter word from the Dux de Luxe. We have fish, meat, fowl but no cocks.”
If not, then you must be related to that loser idiot who claimed his daughter was upset by the use of a perfectly good English word. And I, for one, am pleased to know that the Dux serves me chicken, not rooster.
And no, I have no problem with an ad that states “all business considered, even from Jews”. It was advertising a tv program set in an era and an industry where such attitudes were common. Or do you want to whitewash history? (Am I allowed to say whitewash?)
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Graham,
Everything should be allowed, but I find most of them distasteful, harmful or stupid. Especially the Sky one, the Brandex one and the Fonterra one.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
empty can, re-read what Ben wrote; he doesn’t need a lecture from you, he had it right already.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
“So nobody has a problem with an ad that states “all business considered, even from Jews”?”
This was, from memory, from an ad for “Mad Men”. They were consciously immitating the racist sexist tone of the times (it was one of a series.
And of course, they aren’t saying they wont trade with Jews.
Next we’ll be banning Monty Python.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
MyNameIsJack:
Nope, I didn’t register any of the complaints listed.
For the record, the ONLY time I have EVER complained about any advertising is when Hell Pizza dropped some condoms into my letterbox and my then-8-year-old daughter collected the mail and wanted to know what they were.
I posted my feelings about this in a reasonable manner, and you respond with abuse. So as you’ve already been affected by the “everything goes” culture, I guess your answer to my question would be, “Yes, absolutely everything should be allowed, and anything goes”.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
The ads I’d like to see banned are ALL the government ads. All of them. Those telling us how to drive, what sort of car to buy, not to smash up our families, or drink too much, or get out and exercise, even the ones telling us all about the wonderful government programs like working for families, tax dates and everything else.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“The ads I’d like to see banned are ALL the government ads.”
Now THAT I agree with.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Without even so much as a cost benefit analysis?
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“Without even so much as a cost benefit analysis?”
I did my own. As I am paying for them I am quite entitled to do this.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
When i see anything on TV I don’t like, or hear anything on the radio I don’t like …..I switch channels. Sometimes I won’t switch back.
There are a number of ads currently screening that have us (the family) reaching for the remote. Do I wish that they weren’t there to bug me? Yes of course.
Do I understand that I am not the boss of everyone else? you bet
Do I recognise that I have a choice and the ability to exercise that choice , yessiree.
However, do I also recognise what I see as the decline of morals and corruption of our society and wish it would stop. BIG YES. Can I make it stop? BIG NO.
The only weapon I have is my free will and right to choose. I also have the right to fight back in my own little way if I deem it appropriate. e.g I wouldn’t buy a Hell Pizza at any price. My choice, in response to them exercising theirs.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Ah, life is rosy is the dictatorship of kiwigreg.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
someone’s telling porkies – the Brandex Adventure Sports ad was complained about as it stated African-Americans were superior athletes to white athletes. I know this because I’ve seen the ASA correspondence on the matter.
why they try and make it look the other way around is just typical and amusing political correctness
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I’ll give you a cost benefit analysis.
racer pisses off.
Cost nothing. Benefit to all. To the right not having to put up with delusional rants, To the left of not being represented by a complete tool.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
So I take it your happy with the government wasting money in order to satisfy your ideological position? great! fuck off.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Of anything broadcast or printed in any medium whatsoever, advertising is, by its very nature, the most sensitive to feedback. If people react badly to the ad, the advertiser will be punished in terms of sales. Thus I’ve never understood the need for the ASA particularly when we also have the BSA, which acts to ensure we don’t all get the vapours at the sight of a bare nipple before 8.30 etc. Seems like needless duplication of effort to me.
Of course like all bureaucracies the surfeit of employees spare no effort to justify their worth by crippling those who are actually trying to make a living in the field. For instance the Australian equivalent of the ASA recently rejected an ad I produced for a nationally known NGO/lobby group. The offence? During the “authorisation statement” on the end we displayed the organisation’s well known and widely identifiable logo. No, their name had to be spelled out in white text on a black background etc etc et-bloody-cetera, coz “the regulations say so”.
Rather than charge the client we fixed it for “free” (which of course is no such thing), thus appeasing some tit who’s no doubt never produced a commercial (or anything else of value) in his sorry life.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
“86 complaints is all that the most-hated ad in 2008 can produce? ”
1 complaint means 1 billion people, hence 86 billion people saw the ad and hated it hehe.
Vote:May 7th, 2009 at 9:33 am
No 7. Who would have thought it? Sex used to sell a bed. Probably 99% of all sexual activity happens in beds so giving it a whirl before you buy is probably a good idea.
Vote: