SAATCHI’S RAV 4 ‘BATTLE OF THE SEXES’ SPOT PULLED OFF AIR IN NEW ZEALAND
From NZ Creative Circle: Complaints against Toyota’s “battle of the sexes” television commercial for its new Rav 4 have been upheld by the Advertising Standards
Complaints Board.
The Saatchi & Saatchi COMMERCIAL shows a couple booby-trapping each other’s early morning preparations as they try to be the first to reach their Rav 4 and drive it to work.
In a finding released yesterday, the board found the advertisement breached
three principles in its code of ethics: that advertisements should be
prepared with a due sense of social responsibility, should not contain
anything likely to cause serious or widespread offence, and should not
contain dangerous practices which encourage a disregard for safety.
The board said the 17 complaints received indicated widespread concern.
Complainants said the advertisement sent an inappropriate message to
children about unsafe behavioural practices, that it would be disturbing to
some children to see a “mother” and “father” trying to hurt each other, that
it would be likely to encourage emulation by some people, and that it was not socially responsible to show domestic violence as a means to winning use of an inanimate object.
The board said the advertisement’s “obvious hyperbole and humour” did not prevent it from effecting a breach of the code of ethics rule regarding safety.
National’s spokesman for political correctness eradication, Wayne Mapp, said the decision pandered to the “discontented killjoy minority” who could not distinguish between reality and a fictional world.
“It’s a killjoy attitude that’s so typical of the politically correct. Don’t they realise it’s a spoof?”
23 Comments
Can they start pulling ads on the grounds of being really shit?
That is just complete fucking bullshit. It’s been viralled around the world, it’s funny, and generally very well liked.What’s the bet at least 16 of the 17 “complaints” came from rival advertisers?
Fucking consumers. Always getting in the way of good advertising
Bugger!
What a shame. One of the the funnier spots I’ve seen for a while. Whilst it is obviously inspired by ‘War Of The Roses’, there is nothing wrong with that and I thought it was nastier and hence better.I always though NZ ws a little more accepting of wacky shit, but they do seem to be getting more PC lately. Wasn’t something else banned for equally spurous reasons not so long ago?On the bright side, I’ve been looking for an excuse to bash my parents, corrupt children and smack my bitch to get her car. Now, when I do these things, I can relax because the ASCD has given me an approved defence.
nicely put. they also wouldn’t let Lynx Jet air over here which is even more ridiculous. Great spot but apparently even hinting at the fact that people have sex is a crime as well.NZ isn’t as liberal as everyone might think.
this is fucked up. cant believe only 17 complaints and its pulled off air.. very strange because it had been voted NZ’s no 1 favourite ad.i think its a great ad and I agree, NZ isnt as liberal as everyone might thing. seems like you cant do anything these days in nz.
‘voted NZ’s no 1 favourite ad.’Really? How big was the sample and how representative of the consumer in NZ? Just because only 17 bothered to write in and object doesn’t mean they were the only people who disliked the use of ‘funny’ marital violence to sell an ordinary car.Come to think of it, the ad was pretty average too.But don’t worry the ad will probably win lots of awards anyway, so no harm done.
5;07pm, it was voted number 1 by 1000 New Zealanders who they asked in the street. They have a table on the back page of Ad Media where 1000 punters rate their favourite ads. Quite an effective way of measuring the success of an ad really.Don’t agree with the whole marital violence arguement either. This is so OTT, it’s obviously a spoof. So I take it, Mr & Mrs Smith is a call to arms for all wife beaters too?
I don’t think the point is whether or not the ad is average, the point is whether or not the ad should have been pulled. This is not such a silly thing to state up front. The NZ advertising standards authority can definitely be called into question over this point as they have confused the two before. Let me try and explain this.The advertising authority usually dismisses complaints of violence if the ad in question is blatantly hyperbolic. I don’t work at Saatchis NZ so I’m not defending them but I believe that this ad definitely falls into that category. (How could a exploded woman on the rooftop of a car be anything but). So if an ad is obviously hyperbolic in tone and manner how can the NZ advertising standards uphold a complaint?A similar verdict was reached over the pulling of publicis mojo Auckland’s ‘e2 – mess around later in life’ campaign in 2003. In this example the complaints upheld that “the depiction was offensive and had not been saved by humour.” Which is strange because it was a humorous ad.In this instance the board decided that “it was not funny enough to account for socially irresponsible actions.” Now, I am a little bit concerned about this for the following reason: The complaints board is exercising its discretion in deciding what is a funny ad and what is not. A funny ad in the eyes of a board stands a better chance of remaining on air then a non-funny one. The thing is: what is funny or isn’t funny shouldn’t be decided by a board of technocrats. This is a dangerous line to tread as funny (or not funny) differs greatly depending which demographic you look at. Having a group of white, middle/old aged people with a high discretionary income is going to give you a skewed sense of what is and isn’t funny. For instance:Yes – to Yes Prime Minister.No – to the Simpsons. And in my opinion it isn’t right for a committee to make a judgment call like that.From, a junior.
Watch out NZ, the rise and rise of the fundamentalist right are going to fuck you over.
Watch out NZ, the rise and rise of the fundamentalist right are coming to get ya.
Well done Andy and Jay!
Well done Andy and Jay!
Funnily enough 12:49pm such political correctness which is rife in NZ is the result of the conersvative Labour Government. I think you’ll find far more hand ringing and ‘we know best’ beliefs and policies from those (the left, eco-nazis etc) who claim to act for (but actually against) the general populace.
So, the Russian Brides campaign was normal, everyday life was it?
i thought there were only 17 people in nz anyway and they all work in advertising……oh but they aren’t from new zealand anyway…so who the hell lives in new zealand and isn’t a scamming expat.answers anyone????p.s.i’d rather see a proper tv ad banned then a street bin ad win.
Lynchy, Can you please start a topic on the amount of scam ads from Saatchi’s featured in the latest Campaign Brief. it’s getting beyond a joke when creatives reappropriate ‘fine-artists’ work and turn them into ads. the ‘borrowed’ nature of this type of creative give ‘creative’ a bad name.Come up with your own ideas you sad, sad, sad admen.
Gotta go, my hand’s ringing.
Hey 3:43. I totally agree with you. But I think you’ll find a heap of ads that are inspired or ripped off from artists. It happens all the time. And not only from Saatchi’s.
I agree. So many ads are inspired by artists, musicians etc.., and those ‘UN’ ads are no different. I dont particularly like them, but I have no problem with them spotting and using a style or artwork that they think could be used effectively for a concept. However as I said I do think these ones fall slightly short, but nevertheless better then some of the shit out there.Eg: That latest Siren radio winner – Bic Pens.
I agree with you on one thing 2:12. That Bic pens radio campaign is SHIT.
fuck there are some jealous little people with chips on their shoulder out there…