More ads banned!

irishgeo

the following ads have been banned:

The guinness ad where they have the titanic in it. I.E they best pint is the last one. Reason: It might cause upset to the relatives of the Titanic disaster.

The second ad is a sprite ad , i am not sure which one, The reason it refers to a male rape scene in a film i never heard of.the name was in the paper.

having read the following

link , the sprite ad was not on tv but an outdoor ad.

mike65

I bit OTT what next nothing allowed that invokes an event since 1066?

Pity eircom did'nt get a slap for thier Phone Watch scare tactics...

Mike.

aidan_dunne

Oh for the love of...... :rolleyes:

Political correctness gone mad, I tells ya! Some people really need to get a life and a sense of humour and not be wasting their time complaining about trivial things like this. There's much worse things in the world they could be putting their energy into complaining about instead of a Titanic or "Deliverence" reference in a telly ad.

And, personally, I thought that Guinness "Titanic" ad was pretty clever.

Sarky

"Sprite: Plays the banjo while thirst squeals like a pig."

That one, yeah? I thought it was genius...

Does this mean they'll be taking down the "Gets jiggy with thirst's girlfriend" and "Sleeps with thirst then never calls" ads too? I would have thought they were much more likely to offend. Ther are certainly more people who have been stood up or cheated on than have been raped, but what do I know about political correctness?

Cabaal

irishgeo wrote:

the following ads have been banned:

The guinness ad where they have the titanic in it. I.E they best pint is the last one. Reason: It might cause upset to the relatives of the Titanic disaster.

Oh ffs!
I'd have to agree it certainly is "Political correctness gone mad"
But don't this mean they'll have to ban a friends episode in which Pheobe is playing a nurse back in WW1 and blood is everywhere? (plays during ending credits) After all don't want to upset relatives....
sigh....

:rolleyes:

ixoy

I'm of the opinion that if you want this ad banned then, if it does get banned, you should have your name and address printed. Then all of us can get to see what sort of nice folk are too busy with their time.

However, while we're here, can anyone start coming up with good reasons to get ads we dislike off the air? That new Gilette ad seems to annoy a lot of people..

aidan_walsh

Its upsetting a number of generations of men who do not, and never will, look like David Beckham?

Cabaal

doodle_sketch wrote:

Its upsetting a number of generations of men who do not, and never will, look like David Beckham?

So basically people that actually do *work* and don't spend all day in the gym, yeah?

Sarky

I want to see an end to ads involving Marty Whelan, because his grizzled face reminds me of the grim spectre of death.

irishgeo

anyone notice that none of the ads we hate get banned.

RobertFoster

Ringtone ads cause me a huge amount of distress...should I complain?

Tusky

Who are these stuck up ****s who compain about ads ? I dont know anyone who ever has , do you ?

They must hide in their homes because they are afraid of taking offence to something in the big bad world...

Cabaal

Tusky wrote:

Who are these stuck up ****s who compain about ads ? I dont know anyone who ever has , do you ?

They must hide in their homes because they are afraid of taking offence to something in the big bad world...

I think the answer is simple, other company's
So when somebody complains about a Cadburys advert its Nestle and so on...

sceptre

Tusky wrote:

Who are these stuck up ****s who compain about ads ? I dont know anyone who ever has , do you ?

They must hide in their homes because they are afraid of taking offence to something in the big bad world...

Hello.

I've complained about a few. Actually I made up 1% of the ASAI's complaints for 2003 (I complained about four ads). Only for genuine misleading crap, never for being distasteful (especially as I know they're all the ads we love). As it hapens, alll four were either Eircom or Esat.

And while I know this is a cliché, this is PC gone stupid. "Offending relatives of Titanic victims"? Good lord, welcome to the stupid zone. That crap movie with Kate Winslet and the big boat in it offended a lot more people than that. Certainly offended me. I was disappointed the old biddy didn't jump into the sea at the end.

RuggieBear

Didn't the guinness ad with your man walking on lava get banned for some reason as well....

I can kinda see why the titanic ad got banned tho.....it was a disaster and a hundreds of people died. Admitedly a long time ago but imagine the uproar if someone did a similar ad involving an airplane crashing or sumting....???

p

Cabaal

sceptre wrote:

"Offending relatives of Titanic victims"? Good lord, welcome to the stupid zone. That crap movie with Kate Winslet and the big boat in it offended a lot more people than that. Certainly offended me. I was disappointed the old biddy didn't jump into the sea at the end.

Ita offended me and I still haven't even seen it (I refuse to waste my time)

RuggieBear

sceptre wrote:

Hello.

I've complained about a few. Actually I made up 1% of the ASAI's complaints for 2003 (I complained about four ads). Only for genuine misleading crap, never for being distasteful (especially as I know they're all the ads we love). As it hapens, alll four were either Eircom or Esat.

did you complain about those esat bus shelter ads by any chance?

RainyDay

mike65 wrote:

Pity eircom did'nt get a slap for thier Phone Watch scare tactics...

Mike.

That complaint wasn't upheld.

Victor

http://www.asai.ie/newsletter/detail.tmpl?SKU=20040903092353 "25/30 minutes from their Drumcondra office"

It you stuck to the speed limit it would take 36.4 minutes, Drumcondra - Clogherhead not stopping for traffic lights, roundabouts, sheep etc. :rolleyes:

sceptre

pekelly wrote:

did you complain about those esat bus shelter ads by any chance?

Nope. Didn't see them & only knew about them at all when it was mentioned on the IOFFL forum.

This one's interesting though - the person featured in the advert complained.

Mossy Monk

"The advertisers’ acknowledged that mistakes were made on this particular advertisement and that this happened as they were under severe time pressure to complete the advertisement"

time pressure? so they photoshopped her and said 2 months instead of 4?
WTF

jor el

mistakes were made on this particular advertisement

How can you mistakenly super-impose someone's head on another body? This had to be planned. If anything at all, the time constraint would mean there wasn't enough time to edit the picture. This is blatent lies and missleading advertisement. I hope they got a severe beeting over it, though I guess all they got was a stern taking too and a wag of the finger.
As for the Guinness Titanic ad, I thought that was quite good. You'd have to wonder what kind of people complain about these.

I thought that Guinness ad was in poor taste...HA HA HA you're ordering a pint on the Titanic and having it put on the tab...HA HA HA absolutely everyone's going to die tragically but hey I can get a freebie...

doh.ie

http://www.asai.ie/newsletter/index.tmpl

Highly entertaining. Highly pleasing too to see how many time nightmare broadband provider Esat BT (can you tell I'm out of my contract soon?!) show up in there!

As for the ads from hell, "5 double-7 double-7 bloop" is the most evil incarnation since that low-cost loan from 800 to 15,000 talking telephone. Even worse than Churchill, the loan giving dog.

Sarky

Deleted User wrote:

HA HA HA you're ordering a pint on the Titanic and having it put on the tab...HA HA HA absolutely everyone's going to die tragically but hey I can get a freebie...

I'll bet you laughed at poor Daffy Duck getting high explosives stuffed down his throat.

The Song Thrush

I wonder if a few hundred people complained about an ad just because it was so annoying, would it get banned? There are some ads I'd have a go at. :rolleyes:

RainyDay

The Song Thrush wrote:

I wonder if a few hundred people complained about an ad just because it was so annoying, would it get banned?

Quantity of complaints is NOT one of their criteria for banning an ad. Either an ad breaches their code, or it doesn't - it really doesn't matter how many people complain.

Note that the ASAI has no statuatory power. It is a self-regulating industry group.

Töpher

Those phone ads say 'yoyos' not 'euros' though, so they don't technically state the cost (or that it is even a real cost). Could complain saying you ordered some and then were charged absurd amounts which were not clearly outlined? Or not!

sceptre

Einst&#252 wrote: »

Those phone ads say 'yoyos' not 'euros' though, so they don't technically state the cost

Ah now, yoyos has, for good or for ill, become almost accepted as the euro equivalent of 'quid'. Though I like 'quid' myself so I still use it when I fel like it. Even simoleons would do. "Forty sheep and a packet of peanuts" would be interpreted as "not currency" except in certain rural areas.

Blisterman

Maybe if you sent them actual yoyos, would they have to accept it. If not, then you could get the ads banned.

vibe666

yeah, but how much would two yoyo's actually cost you? probably more then two euro anyway. but ti would be worth it if it worked.

then they'd just change it though.

could get those ringtone ads banned cos they're offensive to the ears.

i could always write in and complain that they are offensive to hippo's.

Venom

The Song Thrush wrote:

I wonder if a few hundred people complained about an ad just because it was so annoying, would it get banned? There are some ads I'd have a go at. :rolleyes:

I think it only takes 5 people to complain to bring an ad up for review/banning.

FX Meister

Venom wrote:

I think it only takes 5 people to complain to bring an ad up for review/banning.

Well then why dont we all call and complain about every ad for ringtones on tv?

RainyDay

Venom wrote:

I think it only takes 5 people to complain to bring an ad up for review/banning.

Not true - A single complaint is sufficient to trigger a review. Quantity of complaints is not a significant factor - It's all about whether the ad breaches the code or not.