Hitler employed as shampoo pitchman

A bizarre story from The Drum. This Turkish shampoo brand has decided not only to be unforgivably sexist, but to Godwin up their ad as well:

"Beneath the images of the Nazi leader the firm typed the message 'If you are not wearing a woman’s dress, you should not use her shampoo either.' 

The piece then concludes: 'Here it is, a real men’s shampoo, Biomen.'"

So, Hitler is a "real man"?

Turkey was neutral for most of the Second World War, sheltering Jewish refugees from Europe.

Abraham H. Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League's National Director, issued this statement:

“This video is just the latest example of the use of Holocaust imagery in some countries to sell commercial products, which has contributed to the trivialization of and desensitization to the unparalleled horrors of the Holocaust. There can never be any justifiable purpose for using the images of Hitler, Nazis or any other depiction of the Nazi killing machine to sell products or services.”

Of course we've seen the Nazi leader in ads before. But usually as a symbol of evil, not as a "macho" pitchman.

Ad hackers play into admen's hands #FdAdFriday

The defacement of public advertising can be brilliant and entertaining, as in the recent Mad Men teaser poster hacks in NYC. And then there's this:

The Drum writes:

Peter Davis, executive creative director of [Powownow agency] gyro Manchester, commented: “Our new campaign for Powwownow has been made to court with controversy, so we’re pleased to see it’s already doing just that. If our character is already causing widespread offence then many people won’t like some of the things we have planned for him - this is only the beginning! We all have preconceptions about free services – ‘if it’s free, it must be bad!’ To confront this idea, we’ve created an obnoxious fictional businessman that spends money lavishly and dislikes anything that’s free – especially Powwownow. Our "more sense than money" campaign drives the idea that actually, you don’t have to pay a premium to get a great quality service.”

In Plain English: the guy in the ads is supposed to be an asshole and the copy is supposed to piss you off.

So, whoever got enraged enough to risk arrest and fine by stating the obvious on this ad actually did the advertiser a tremendous favour. I wouldn't be surprised if future campaigns of this kind actually hire people to deface the ads. (Maybe that's what's happening with the Mad Men meme - you never know.)

Being an ironic asshole in your advertising, by the way, has a history of backfiring. Remember the Groupon dogpile during last year's Super Bowl? People are just not that clever.

Canada for President!

"In our riots, people get laid"

This cute video proposes a third option to cynical American voters for the 2012 Presidential Election: Canada.

Think about it: better healthcare, a stronger economy, poutine... we really have a lot to offer. And, as the Canada Party points out, we've been getting more American lately anyway.



The video could have been much funnier, but according to an interview in the Scottish ad blog, The Drum, there are many more campaign ads to come between now and November.

Here's the background:

"[Brian] Calvert and American-born writer Chris Cannon developed the idea while throwing around concepts for a politically-based comedy project and Cannon's idea of Canada as a political party. 

Of the present US election debate, Calvert says, 'I can't believe anyone can see who to vote for.' 

Filmed in a friend's living room, the video has the national anthem, O Canada, playing softly in the background as Calvert pokes fun at both America and his homeland. 

Running on a platform of 'America, but better,' Calvert explained the theme was actually a position many political candidates were taking: restoring American to its former glory.
Putting aside that it's a country and not a person, Calvert acknowledges that Canada was not born in the U.S. 

'But the first seven presidents weren't born in America," he says. "Both of our parents are the British, so it's like we're brothers.'"

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