Ads that get right on your tits

[(o)(o)]

There's something really wrong with your life if you'll take advice on what food to buy from a stuffed toy.

I really don't understand what they're trying to say with those adverts.

I reckon it's subliminal. They plant a seed in the head that makes the consumer reluctant to purchase other brands, cos now you're preconditioned to feel a sense of eerie dickheadness when in proximity of a fridge whilst in possession of fingers that aren't "flaky 100% fish fillet".

[Yak]

I'd feel just as reluctant to eat something whose major claim was that it was "100% fish" without specifying *what* fish it was, as I would be eating any product which contained unspecified "meat". Birdseye used to specifically state that their fish fingers were cod, and now they are not, a sad fact that was rammed home to me when I bought some a couple of years ago just for old times' sake and they tasted like smeg.

They were supposed to be high in omega whatever, but if they taste like smeg they can still fuck off. Where's the bloody cod ones? Those I'd buy; smeg-tasting unspecified "fish" that's somehow supposed to be good for my health can fuck right off.

And remember: "same great taste!" is ALWAYS a lie.

Cunts.

[Flabio]

You're not meant to buy cod anymore though, it's unethical apparently.

Anyway, the chaps at we buy any car have gone for a double whammy. There's a new footy flavoured tv ad, and they're also sponsoring the motoring shows on Dave with some really annoying break bumpers.

[(o)(o)]

You're not meant to buy cod anymore though, it's unethical apparently.

Anyway, the chaps at we buy any car have gone for a double whammy. There's a new footy flavoured tv ad, and they're also sponsoring the motoring shows on Dave with some really annoying break bumpers.

[youtube]<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-gLUE1IXN9A&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-gLUE1IXN9A&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[Mark]

I hate the adverts at the moment that use piss-poor rhyming. The current coke advert is the main culprit, but there's also at least one other for broadband that's pretty damned naff too. They sound like they were written by a reluctant eight year old who'd had his dictionary stolen, wasn't very good at rhyming, and hated the idea of poetry in general.

[merman]

I hate the adverts at the moment that use piss-poor rhyming. The current coke advert is the main culprit, but there's also at least one other for broadband that's pretty damned naff too. They sound like they were written by a reluctant eight year old who'd had his dictionary stolen, wasn't very good at rhyming, and hated the idea of poetry in general.

Do you mean the O2 "Niggles" ad? Hate that one with a passion.

And since I've been watching Scrubs regularly (almost daily) on E4, I'm now heartily sick of the LG bumpers with the R&B guy "singing" the situation

"Your boss just caught you sleeping, now he's all up in your grill..."

Good, get the sack. Don't sing about it.

[Gorecki]

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

[Yak]

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK

[WiredWorm]

I know Yak. I'm currently camped out in my kitchen guarding it in case a hoard of random people invade it and start sniffing around the place.

In other news i'm currently hating the advert for a new product which seemingly finds great joy in finding something else for people to worry about. It's the soap dispenser which doesn't require you to touch it, lest you should catch the plague or some other such illness by actually, y'know, having to touch something.

They really do seem to be trying to pray on the smallest little concern people might (or might not) have.....

[Sir_LANs-a-lot]

I know Yak. I'm currently camped out in my kitchen guarding it in case a hoard of random people invade it and start sniffing around the place.

In other news i'm currently hating the advert for a new product which seemingly finds great joy in finding something else for people to worry about. It's the soap dispenser which doesn't require you to touch it, lest you should catch the plague or some other such illness by actually, y'know, having to touch something.

They really do seem to be trying to pray on the smallest little concern people might (or might not) have.....

Saw that earlier myself and thought what a stupid paranoid world we live in.

[Yak]

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.

[gilesgoat]

I find now totally stupid and "a joke that got a bit too thin" that set of phone/internet ads about that guy that married
that divorced lady IMHO the first mistake of his life was to get involved with that new girl .. the second one, getting
involved with phone ads

[Alarm]

Two ads are particularly annoying me at the moment:

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

and, just when you thought that the Little Britain creators couldn't flog their medicore- one series was enough, ta - comedy any more, annoying adverts featuring their characters. Whatever next? Little Britain in Space (in 3D)?

Oh, and give the meerkats a break, thanks. At least moonpig isn't on every single day...

[Alarm]

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK

That reminds me of the ad. where a girl walks into a room and comments on how fresh it smells. Or the one with the man who, for some reason, tries to activate a spray by walking in front of it repeatedly, instead of pressing the button (his wife, of course, shows him how to do this).

[Yak]

HAVE YOU SMELT THIS CHAIR?