'Sure Girl' advertisements

Status
Not open for further replies.
ClubMan said:
I think you're wasting your time based on my own past experience. They are an advertising industry self regulatory body with no statutory powers. If they do eventually make a ruling in favour of your complaints then it will probably come long after the advertising campaign has run its course.
Click to expand...

Yes - you could well be right. I did make a complaint. I noticed you can browse their site and read details of past complaints - both those that were upheld and those that werent. I suppose it depends on how many people complain, on what grounds etc...
 
These girls were around 14 years old - its an impressionable age.
Click to expand...

Therefore they would be under the supervision of an adult .ie. driver and it's their responsibility to make them wear seat belts. A little artistic licence should be allowed for.
 
truthseeker said:
I suppose it depends on how many people complain, on what grounds etc...
Click to expand...
You suppose what depends on this? How quickly they act? I'm not aware of this being the case but then their processes and procedures are not exactly very transparent so we can't really judge. Good to know that there are such unilaterally appointed non statutory arbiters of what is deemed to be acceptable protecting us from ourselves though.
 
I agree with all the arguments about artistic license and personal repsonsibility but look at the all the money spent (taxpayers??) that is spent on road safety adverts showing the effects of not wearing a seat belt. Why bother if another advert advertising deoderant can come along and show young people having a party in a moving car. It is irrepsonsible as it is in no way necessary to do this way to promote the product and at the same time is giving off dangerous messages. Would an ad showing a driver having a can of beer be allowed?
 
Would the target market actually be scanning the ad for flaws or just be taken in by the colours , music, fun vibe etc. Would anyone actually link having fun with not wearing their seat belt? I think not.
 
MrMan said:
Would the target market actually be scanning the ad for flaws or just be taken in by the colours , music, fun vibe etc. Would anyone actually link having fun with not wearing their seat belt? I think not.
Click to expand...

Considering I thought it was a Road Safety Authority ad until the very last minute because it was SO obvious how dangerous it was (or perhaps Im conditioned by the RSA ads to be on alert to young people in cars), Id imagine itd be obvious to anyone.
 
truthseeker said:
It made me highly concerned that young girls might think it was a good idea to dance round the backs of cars with no seatbelts on. These girls were around 14 years old - its an impressionable age.
Click to expand...

The driver in the car is legally responsible for ensuring that any children are wearing their seatbelts.
 
shanegl said:
The driver in the car is legally responsible for ensuring that any children are wearing their seatbelts.
Click to expand...

yes - but it is surely better practice in advertising to show any occupants in a car wearing seat belts so as not to promote irresponsibility.
 
Personally, I prefer the old "Sure" ads some obviously naked young ladies sprayed the deoderant onto their torsos through a "tick" shaped hole in a big leaf, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the spray on the treated area relative to every other part of their bodies.

Amazing what you remember from your teenage years!
 
Staples said:
Personally, I prefer the old "Sure" ads some obviously naked young ladies sprayed the deoderant onto their torsos through a "tick" shaped hole in a big leaf, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the spray on the treated area relative to every other part of their bodies.

Amazing what you remember from your teenage years!
Click to expand...

See, just proves that ads do have an impression on teenagers ;)
 
Staples said:
Personally, I prefer the old "Sure" ads some obviously naked young ladies sprayed the deoderant onto their torsos through a "tick" shaped hole in a big leaf, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the spray on the treated area relative to every other part of their bodies.
Click to expand...
Didn't they then go on to climb a cliff or tree or something to work up a sweat? That was very dangerous behaviour. Surely it should have been banned?
 
While your at it you could ban the latest lynx ad as it shows girls leaning out of a car (no seat belts) to grab a mans chocolate arm!. I'm sure there are more examples.
 
ClubMan said:
Didn't they then go on to climb a cliff or tree or something to work up a sweat? That was very dangerous behaviour. Surely it should have been banned?
Click to expand...

You are not exactly comparing like with like are you? Its not against the law to climb a cliff or tree. It is against the law not to wear a seatbelt. I don't think any ad should be banned unless it is really offensive but the OP is entitled to ask how an ad like this is allowed while at the same time having RSA ads shows the dangers of not wearing seat belts. Gay Byrne needs to get on the case!!
 
alright guys - thanks for the replies, if i see the ad again this evening ill scrutinise it carefully to see if im equally as affronted as i was this morning.

one funny thought occured to me - it WAS 8am this morning, i WAS a bit sleepy - so i hope i dont see it again and notice theyre all strapped in and perfectly safe after me giving out about it here :)
 
MrMan said:
While your at it you could ban the latest lynx ad as it shows girls leaning out of a car (no seat belts) to grab a mans chocolate arm!. I'm sure there are more examples.
Click to expand...


I am sure there are more examples. Doesn't make it right though. Ads showing drink driving wouldn't be allowed so why should ads showing the breaking of one of other road safety laws be acceptable?
 
I'm sure it was just an oversight on the behalf of the commercial director or whoever was in charge, unless they were actually hoping for controversy.
 
qwertyuiop said:
In what way?
Click to expand...

Racist - as rmelly says why was this guy not made of white chocolate?

Sexist - imagine the uproar if it was guys taking bites out of a woman.

Gratuitously violent - girls biting lumps of his a** on the bus, what example is this giving to Finglas denizens?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top