Ads that get right on your tits

[sack]

I saw a box of tea the other day which said it was vegetarian.

really?

I've never come across lumps of bacon in my tea before - any reason why I should specifically be told this tea is okay for veggies? Or have I misunderstood the concept of an infusion made from plant leaves?

[gilesgoat]

Maybe because "this plant been fed only with chemical fertilizers we don't use organic manure from animals in any way"

[Alarm]

Why is it suitable for vegetarians and not vegans?

[piku]

that horrible "daddy doesn't love me because he 'phones me on a mobile" one

Yeah, "Daddy is a crap parent and doesn't listen to his children... but then when he uses a BT LANDLINE he becomes an excellent parent". Is there some reason why daddy can't just be at home with his family, or at least sit down with his mobile phone?

Not as crap as the Vodafone one where some bloke is about to give a dinner speech and gets interrupted by his daughter in her car. "Sorry folks, family crisis you know, I'll just be off now".

I'm waiting for a BT ad where someone is having a bit of a medical crisis in their home, they try to dial 999 but their mobile battery is dead... but fortunately they have a landline and are saved. Then the corresponding mobile phone version where some poor sod is stranded by the side of the motorway and discovers his nearest SOS phone is broken but since he has his mobile, he can call for help*.

* Calls to 0845 and 0800 numbers will be charged at £1 per second.

[5th Earth]

Why is it suitable for vegetarians and not vegans?

The vegan tea explodes when you put milk in it.

[piku]

That Betty Crocker Devil's chocolate cake ad.

The one voiced over by some little kid. Little kids talking is not cute or amusing.

[KlaxonCow]

Giles is psychic. He answered Alarm's question before he even asked it.

Why is it suitable for vegetarians and not vegans?

Maybe because "this plant been fed only with chemical fertilizers we don't use organic manure from animals in any way"

[Alarm]

That Betty Crocker Devil's chocolate cake ad.

The one voiced over by some little kid. Little kids talking is not cute or amusing.

That child is addicted to chocolate. Rather than filming him, shouldn't they be taking him to rehab or something?

[(o)(o)]

I saw a box of tea the other day which said it was vegetarian.

really?

I've never come across lumps of bacon in my tea before - any reason why I should specifically be told this tea is okay for veggies?

Same reason you see it on bottles of wine that don't have bacon floating in it.

[(o)(o)]

Advertising is legalized lying

http://xrrf.blogspot.com/2010/06/cheryl ... ently.html

This is a bit of an open-and-shut case, right? Cheryl Cole appeared in an advert for Nestle L'oreal, punting some hair gunk which said could give her hair like hers. Except it couldn't, because she had hair extensions in. Oh, and you can't even use the product if you've got hair extensions. Not the worst piece of duplicitous advertising, but still, worthy of a reminder not to fib, eh, Advertising Standards Authority?

Apparently not.

We considered consumers would understand the message of the ads to be that the product could have some positive and achievable effect on their weak, dull, limp and lifeless hair but that they would not be misled into believing that, by just using the product, it would replicate for them the fullness of Cheryl Coles hair, because hers had been professionally styled. We concluded that the ads did not misleadingly exaggerate the effects of the product.


That's a bit weird - 'it's okay to illustrate your product with a totally impossible result because, hey, the schleps who slap L'Oreal on their heads are already crushed by life enough to know they're never going to look like Cheryl Cole" - but I can understand the logic.

But advertising a product that you can't use with hair extensions by using a model with hair extensions in - that, surely, is wrong, ASA?

We noted ad (a) showed Cheryl Cole wearing hair extensions but did not state that the product was suitable for use with extensions. We considered the text "Styled with some natural hair extensions" was likely to be interpreted as suggesting the models hairstyle included extensions, not that the product was suitable to care for them. We also considered viewers were likely to understand that they would need to check before using a product on their particular type of hair extensions. We concluded that the ad was not misleading.


Why not go the whole hog and just get someone in wearing a wig and a hat?

Still, nice to see self-regulation knows the job is to always err on the side of the advertiser than logic or honesty. Because they're worth it.

http://asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-ac ... 48536.aspx

To be fair, people who watch adverts are fucking idiots who deserve what they get.

[Mark]

I saw a box of tea the other day which said it was vegetarian.

really?

I've never come across lumps of bacon in my tea before - any reason why I should specifically be told this tea is okay for veggies?

Same reason you see it on bottles of wine that don't have bacon floating in it.

IIRC, most wine uses isinglass as a clarifying agent - it's made from the swim bladders of fish. Veggie wine doesn't use it. Tea is, from personal experience, generally seafood-free.


Anyway, I've just seen a hateful Sanex advert. Apparently the skin of women's "underarms" have rights and allegedly their product respects them.

A) No it doesn't, and B) they're fucking armpits. Your armpits are no more your underarms than your thighs are your overknees. Utter marketing underpenis!*


*or behindpenis, depending on current groinal circumstance.

[carolen]

From http://www.yakyak.org/viewtopic.php?f=2 ... t#p1466482

NEVER TOUCH THE TOILET SEAT AGAIN

I never knew anyone could be so paranoid about lifting the seat of the loo. God bless America, eh.

Oh, they've gone one better now. SOAP IS CONTAGIOUS AND FILTHY. IT MUST BE BANNED. Note also the 'fact' (sic) at 0:10.



Gnnnnnnnn

[venusian]

Oh, they've gone one better now. SOAP IS CONTAGIOUS AND FILTHY. IT MUST BE BANNED. Note also the 'fact' (sic) at 0:10.

Even better they now decide how much you use each time (i.e. lots) so you get through it more quickly.

I think we can tell what demographic this is aimed at by the use of the non-word "germy".

[Yak]

good grief, even *if* there are "germs" on top of the soap dispenser aren't you just about to, you know, WASH YOUR HANDS directly after you've touched them?

Really, people are being conditioned into total paranoia about all this crap. My brothers are all very "middle class" types and some of them seem to have been infected by this paranoia. We were out walking in Scotland in May, just a normal nice day walking that ended up in a pub for a pint and a packet of crisps. One of the brothers proceeded to get out a little tube of some super cleansing potion and would not touch his crisps until his hands had been suitably germicided. Two of the others then availed themselves of the same, to my mind completely unnecessary, procedure.

Also I like how in those germicidal product ads they obviously aren't allowed to claim 100% efficiency so always in the little animations that show the product swooshing away the colonies of brightly-coloured "germs" there are always a few spots left behind. It must kill them to have to leave those visible spots there but I guess the rules demand it .

[Alarm]

There is an advert where a lady ejects her boyfriend/husband off the sofa (and out of the window) seemingly because he is just sat there and in her presence. The ad. is for period pain (AFAIK) and perhaps she is seeking revenge on her male partner, as he erm, isn't in pain, or something?

The aforementioned armit one is annoying too (assuming it is the same ad.): there is a line of women, all having their armpits kissed by men(!) And I thought advertisements with female actors kissing babies' bottoms were bad...