The PaddyPower Last Supper Ad

alleepally

Can't find the original thread that was posted here a while back. ASAI received 121 complaints about the ad - apparantly the highest number of complaints about any ad.

Bulleting below from www.asai.ie

---

ASAI Complaints Bulletin 05/5

CASE REPORT
Batch No: 158
Ref: AC/0509/0900

Product: Bookmakers
Advertiser: Paddy Power
Agency: Cawley Nea TBWA
Medium: Outdoor

Complaint:

An advertisement for Paddy Powers was the subject of a range of objections from individuals and a number of groups. The advertisement was based on Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper’ and depicted Christ and his apostles around table with a range of gaming devices and equipment.

The complainants considered that the advertisement made a mockery of the Last Supper, was exploitative of a scene of religious significance and was deeply offensive to Christian beliefs. A number of complainants stated that a similar treatment of other faiths would not be tolerated.

Code Section: 2.13 2.14 2.16 (2001 Edition)

Response:

The advertisers stated that the advertisement was built around the proposition that Paddypower.com is ‘the place for fun and games’. The creative idea worked by way of parody being set in locations which are quite obviously not the place for fun and games. The advertisement had been created in a surreal world of the fantasy and they stated that it is obvious that a scene like this could never have happened. This particular advertisement is parodying a well known painting – Da Vinci’s Last Supper. It is a subversion of a well known work of art. The core proposition is to vividly demonstrate that this scene is not a place for fun and games

The concept was carefully researched and selected to run after a comprehensive piece of qualitative pre advertising testing. The research deemed it to be ‘clearly ironic’ rather than offensive. The advertisement, as validated by the research, was a humorous, impactful and targeted advertisement.

They stated that this pre testing of the advertisement would seem to them to have been vindicated by the recent public debate about the appropriateness of the advertising. They referred specifically to radio phone-ins and TV debates on Gerry Ryan (2fm), Ray D’Arcy (Today fm), The Panel (RTE2), Questions & Answers (RTE1) etc. where on balance the advertisement was seen to be both humorous and ironic and not offensive.

The advertisers said that they understood that a minority of people took offence to the advertisement and officially voiced their complaints with the ASAI. They apologised sincerely for any offence caused to this small group of people.

They said that they have decided to immediately withdraw the advertisement without prejudice, in recognition of their responsibility and commitment to self regulation and the role of the ASAI. However, they stated that they would still strongly argue that they do not agree with the removal of this advertising, for the reasons outlined above.

The Secretariat offered the advertisers an opportunity to submit the particular research referred to by them but it was not forthcoming.

Conclusion:

Complaint Upheld

The Code of Advertising Standards requires that an advertisement should contain nothing that is likely to cause grave or widespread offence. It further requires that advertisements should respect the dignity of all persons and should avoid causing offence on grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the traveller community. To avoid causing offence, advertisements should be responsive to the diversity in Irish society and advertisements which portray or refer to people within the groups mentioned should not ridicule or exploit religious beliefs, symbols, rites or practices. Compliance with the Code is assessed on the basis of the standards of taste, decency and propriety generally accepted in Ireland, taking account of the product involved, the media used, the location and context in which the advertisement is placed and the characteristics of the audience addressed.

The Complaints Committee noted that the Secretariat had requested the removal of this advertisement and the advertisers’ response. They considered that the action of the Secretariat was correct in the circumstances. They noted that as with the other Paddy Power advertisement featuring a maternity ward scene, this advertisement was intended to depict situations where fun and games would not be appropriate. They considered, however, that in view of the number and content of the complaints that the advertisement had clearly offended those who had seen it and that it contravened the Code. Finally, they noted that the number of complaints received, 121, was the highest number received in relation to any advertisement.

whiskeyman

no surprise really.... job done by all at Cawley tbh...

Branoic

Nice one, thanks!

alleepally wrote:

The Secretariat offered the advertisers an opportunity to submit the particular research referred to by them but it was not forthcoming.

Haha....the chancers!

"We have evidence in research to conclude the ad would not be offensive"

"Fine. Can we see this research?"

"Uuuummmmmmmmmmmmm........no."

Mungaman

I was on a target focus group with all of the Paddy Power "Time for fun and Games" campaign and not one person in the group I was in,(there were two others) thought it was acceptable (the last supper ad) infact everyone was saying its a cheap slant at getting free PR. No one thought it was funny, so the back up they got was what we all knew - adverse reaction. There was one that they were trying to do, what I can't mention, that was even worse. Same scenario just different subjects

whiskeyman

Mungaman wrote:

I was on a target focus group with all of the Paddy Power "Time for fun and Games" campaign and not one person in the group I was in,(there were two others) thought it was acceptable (the last supper ad) infact everyone was saying its a cheap slant at getting free PR. No one thought it was funny, so the back up they got was what we all knew - adverse reaction. There was one that they were trying to do, what I can't mention, that was even worse. Same scenario just different subjects

interesting... cheers for the info.
I think someone leaked that other ad idea here... lets just say it had something to do with priests playing poker with "unique" type of chips.
Would I be right?

Necronomicon

Haven't they had another two contraversial ads put on the shelf? I remember one was the poster where two elderly pedestrians were crossing the road with "2/1" and "evens" written next to them, and an oncoming truck in the background.
But hey, at least it gets them noticed! I wonder how many sports fans would stop betting there because they think their ads are dodgy.

Culchie

Necromomicon wrote:

Haven't they had another two contraversial ads put on the shelf? I remember one was the poster where two elderly pedestrians were crossing the road with "2/1" and "evens" written next to them, and an oncoming truck in the background.
But hey, at least it gets them noticed! I wonder how many sports fans would stop betting there because they think their ads are dodgy.

Whilst you may be right, I think it was a blatant waste of money. I sold my shares in Paddy Power when I seen they were prepared to spend money on a campaign that was obviously intentionally offensive, and did it despite the fact they knew it would be pulled.

4/5 weeks on now, what value all that money they spent on that campaign now? They'll relish the fact the judgement puts it back on the media radar again for a couple of days, but I thought the whole episode was poor business practice.

whiskeyman

Culchie wrote:

Whilst you may be right, I think it was a blatant waste of money. I sold my shares in Paddy Power when I seen they were prepared to spend money on a campaign that was obviously intentionally offensive, and did it despite the fact they knew it would be pulled.

4/5 weeks on now, what value all that money they spent on that campaign now? They'll relish the fact the judgement puts it back on the media radar again for a couple of days, but I thought the whole episode was poor business practice.

Probably the flip side tbh.
The marketing dept will have prepared a report on evaluating the campaign and will have so much coverage to mention, it's probably their best campaign ever.
Althought I also thought it was poor practice of them, it just shows that current regulation allows such campaigns out. They just happened to take full advantage of it.

Culchie

I know it got coverage. But did it positively affect the bottom line? Did it bring any more punters in?
Does that campaign hold any value now, 5 weeks later? I don't think so somehow.

That's the questions the finance people and shareholders should be asking.

They would have been far better using the hundreds of thousands they flushed down the toilet going around to all the pub tournaments and get people signed up to Paddy Power Poker rather than insult and offend people with a campaign they always knew would not see the end of it's campaign.

whiskeyman

Culchie wrote:

I know it got coverage. But did it positively affect the bottom line? Did it bring any more punters in?
Does that campaign hold any value now, 5 weeks later? I don't think so somehow.

That's the questions the finance people and shareholders should be asking.

They would have been far better using the hundreds of thousands they flushed down the toilet going around to all the pub tournaments and get people signed up to Paddy Power Poker rather than insult and offend people with a campaign they always knew would not see the end of it's campaign.

It's all part of the larger drive to affect the bottom line.... they are running many above and below the line campaigns.
This particular campaign wouldnt have had a huge impact itself, but it has increased awareness greatly, who can then be influenced further by other campaigns.
You have to remember, they got a huge amount of "free" publicity here, that the finance guys would have been well impressed with.