Lawyer complains Carlton Draught ad implies ‘It’s unmanly to wash after urinating’

An outdoor ad for Carlton Draught has drawn a complaint to the advertising watchdog because it tries to persuade men that it is unmanly to wash their hands after going to the toilet.

The billboard, located at the corner of Victoria Road and Robert Street in Rozelle, Sydney, reads ‘The Carlton Draught Tap. The only tap men use at the pub’.

The complaint, made by a 40-something male lawyer, reads: “The advertising message implies that men, real or otherwise, do not wash their hands when they are at the pub, or that it is unmanly to do so.”

“The ad encourages behaviour – namely, not washing hands after urinating or defecating – that is contrary to public health messages about hygiene and disease prevention and control and on which various government agencies spend millions of dollars promoting annually.

The grievance continued: “For the foregoing reasons, is against the public interest to an extent that far outweighs the rights or need of the advertiser to promote its product in such a counter-productive manner, i.e. its removal would not prevent the advertiser from conveying the benefits, characteristics and qualities of its product in a more responsible, not least tasteful or imaginative manner.”

The complainant went so far as to suggest alternative copy for the ad: ‘Caaarlton Draught – Australia’s Triple A Beer.’

The complaint is currently being reviewed by the Advertising Standards Bureau, which initially threw it out for not breaching its code on alcohol advertising.

The man pointed out that the ad might offend community standards on health or safety, as per section 2 of the Code of Ethics, and the ASB subsequently reviewed his complaint.

Clemenger BBDO Melbourne, the agency that made the ad, declined to comment.

Comments


  1. Matt
    27 Mar 12
    11:29 am

  2. I think the ad just seems silly – doesn’t make me want to drink their beer

  3. les wood
    27 Mar 12
    11:33 am

  4. People have too much time on their hands

  5. Damien
    27 Mar 12
    11:41 am

  6. A harmless and humourous billboard being quashed by someone with no sense of humour. Some people read way too much into slogans. I highly doubt men will stop washing their hands based on a billboard. Besides it’s been my experience that many don’t wash their hands not only at the pub, but at shops and restaurants…

  7. Janine
    27 Mar 12
    11:46 am

  8. It’s definitely one of the dumbest ads I’ve seen of late :-/

  9. Hadley
    27 Mar 12
    11:50 am

  10. Slow news day, is it?
    This is interesting banter but I’d hardly classify it as “news.”

  11. Pedro
    27 Mar 12
    12:01 pm

  12. Surely copy on this ad merely makes a statement based on a common observation and is not instructive in nature?
    I can’t help but think this lawyers time could’ve been put to better use.

  13. Anon
    27 Mar 12
    12:01 pm

  14. Legit complaint. If you touch your dick, wash your hands.

  15. AdGrunt
    27 Mar 12
    12:03 pm

  16. Not a very good lawyer.

    Doesn’t get the difference between inference and instruction.

  17. sounds like...
    27 Mar 12
    12:27 pm

  18. the lawyer was having a bad day and went all out. Men have rights too… hehehe

  19. Demi Moore
    27 Mar 12
    12:51 pm

  20. I strenuously object!

  21. Sally
    27 Mar 12
    1:03 pm

  22. Good on the complainer. it’s a double crime: trivialising unhealthy behaviour that can have real consequences (gastro is hideous) for what’s a pretty ordinary attempt at humour which (to me) does nothing to really distinguish the brand. You go guy.

  23. Paris
    27 Mar 12
    1:21 pm

  24. Saw this yesterday and couldn’t work out what the other tap was..other beer taps maybe? Oh well, who cares? Half the blokes I see don’t wash their hands anyway. Big whoop.

  25. Jeorgia Roach
    27 Mar 12
    1:30 pm

  26. I wonder if the person behind the complaint considered that perhaps the ad was simply referring to the taps behind the bar and not every tap in the building?

  27. Stephen
    27 Mar 12
    1:30 pm

  28. i know…….like zzzzzzzzzzzeriously

  29. AJV
    27 Mar 12
    1:31 pm

  30. this billboard is definitely in Rozelle Sydney… not Melbourne..

  31. Matty
    27 Mar 12
    1:33 pm

  32. Harden TFU.

  33. Roland
    27 Mar 12
    1:43 pm

  34. Oleee, papa! It’s political correctness gone mad. No doubt the lawyer will want a disclaimer in 48pt type.

  35. Jed
    27 Mar 12
    1:51 pm

  36. I own antique lamps with more common sense than this guy.

  37. everybody wants to be a copywriter
    27 Mar 12
    1:59 pm

  38. The complainant went so far to suggest alternative copy for the ad: ‘Caaarlton Draught – Australia’s Triple A Beer.’

    That’s gold I tells ya.

  39. King's Cross
    27 Mar 12
    2:03 pm

  40. Hey lawyer man, nice hair cut…

  41. Mark
    27 Mar 12
    2:06 pm

  42. It’s a good try…not sure the ad does anything other than be-little Carlton drinkers.

    Is this what happens when someone lets the client have a crack at writing copy and the funny line in their head just doesn’t quite seem funny to anyone else?

  43. Brad
    27 Mar 12
    2:26 pm

  44. Can’t deny that its not a bloody weird period in advertising

    But no need to rag on it.

  45. sam
    27 Mar 12
    2:30 pm

  46. They must have those new clean dicks that are going around. The lesson here is that if you know your mate drinks Carlton Draught, don’t shake his hand.

  47. Kyle
    27 Mar 12
    2:45 pm

  48. Fat slag.

  49. Ethnic minority
    27 Mar 12
    2:54 pm

  50. Poppy’s a little sloppy.

  51. column 9
    27 Mar 12
    2:55 pm

  52. saw the ad, thought it referred to its product as toilet water, bought another beer!

  53. Blue
    27 Mar 12
    3:18 pm

  54. The only tap I use is the one in the bathroom. The one the bartender uses is probably near to the Carlton Draught one, but marked “Coopers”.

    To be fair, the complaint won’t stand, but I’m not overly happy about ads saying “blokes are all filthy bastards”, the reality is most do wash their hands.

  55. John Grono
    27 Mar 12
    3:32 pm

  56. I thought it meant it was as weak as piss!

  57. Groucho
    27 Mar 12
    3:42 pm

  58. If you touch the doors on the way in wash your hands before you touch it.

    And, if you see Sally tell her you don’t get gastro from a willie, and you don’t get pregnant sitting on a warm toilet seat. (But watch out for cold ones)

  59. Offal Spokesperson
    27 Mar 12
    4:38 pm

  60. Just make sure you wash your hands after visiting a lawyer.

  61. Bob
    27 Mar 12
    4:50 pm

  62. People who don’t wash their hands after pissing should be shot.

    But that ad just says beer tap to me, not basin tap.

  63. JB
    27 Mar 12
    4:52 pm

  64. I am the not-very-good lawyer and wannabe copywriter with too much time on my hands, though it is nice having the time to do what I want, when I want, I must say.

    Apart from leaving a bad taste in my mouth, I made the objection to the ad for two reasons:

    1. The copy is so poor and tasteless that it debases the brand and those who drink it (for MAN read: the only tap a CARLTON DRINKER touches);

    2. The ad goes some way to normalising not washing hands for men generally and Carlton Draught drinkers in particular.

    My GP who appreciates the implications better than some readers was equally appalled.

    To Pedro and AdGrunt, amongst two of the least vitriolic complainers about the complaint, it is not whether the ad is instructive, it is that it nods seemingly approvingly at behaviour that is contrary to public health messages which cost taxpayers millions each year to promote while also implying that Carlton drinkers are lowest (no offence to RJ Reynolds Tobacco). Pretty dumb really.

    And I do know the difference between “infer” and “imply” (does AdGrunt), and I believe the ad implies what I said it did. That it does not intone (i.e. instruct) unhygienic practices is neither here nor there.

    For an ad like this to be funny, it has to be so absurd as to be completely dismissible as depicting realistic behaviour. Think the Hahn Light commercials where the likeable guy bombs into the spa next to his g/f and slaps his g/f with a fish he hauls into the gondola in Venice. Now THAT’s funny. But I wouldn’t complain because it is wrong to hit your g/f or that bombing in spas is dangerous. It is so absurd we take no notice.

    But this Carlton ad is not that absurd. As Pedro wrote, it is observational not instructional. But it does not need to be instructional if it goes some way to normalising, by trivialising, abhorrent behaviour such as defecating then not washing hands. It is a short step to young men in the bathroom looking askance at blokes washing their hands. Or do Pedro and AdGrunt believe advertising has no such influence? Clearly not.

    Based on the feedback above, no one likes the ad; at best it is ambiguous; at worst stupid, unhelpful and potentially dangerous.

    For all the money CUB spends promoting Caaarlton, it and the public deserve Triple-A copy, for the only Triple-A beer in a Triple A country.

    Why not offer two for one Caaarlton’s on tap to anyone who can order a round in the most Caaarlton-esque way? “Two Caaarlton’s love”. That’d be fun helpful and engaging. Or just post the vids of same on Facebook, for example.

    So that’s all; no need for bitterness and nastiness. It’s just a poor ad that is so counterproductive on so many levels that all of society, not least the copywriter, will be better off the sooner it comes down.

    As for what the ASB et al might say . . .. watch this space, but whatever the case, I believe the arguments of the complainers about the complainant have less merit than the complaint.

  65. JB
    27 Mar 12
    5:26 pm

  66. PS – Jeorgia et al, it does not matter if CUB or the copyrighter meant beer tap (unlikely) so long as the man in the street takes it to mean bathroom tap. Clearly the ad is a play on words.

  67. Groucho
    27 Mar 12
    5:37 pm

  68. @JB as a lawyer you should know that poor and tasteless copy is no grounds for complaint. If you have so much time on your hands do some reading, get your skills up, and maybe you will get some client work to keep you in beer. You sure won’t be offered a job as a copywriter.

  69. Nick
    27 Mar 12
    5:56 pm

  70. JB, if you’re keen to be a copyrighter you might want to learn to spell first.

  71. JB
    27 Mar 12
    6:01 pm

  72. Groucho, if you had read the complaint with due care you would have understood that neither the copy’s tastelessness nor poor quality was a basis for the complaint to ASB which was based purely on the implied message that Carlton drinkers ignoring health standards was somehow unremarkable if not acceptable.

    And while I risked my life to take the photo of that lousy ad and agree I won’t be offered a job as a copywriter, I dare say there are many copywriters that would not be offered jobs based on their worst copy, not least the author of that sub-prime offering.

    As for your (presumptuous) reading and career advice, Groucho, the success fees are quite adequate and the lifestyle more than agreeable, so why not stick to your knitting instead of wasting your time telling me what to do with mine?

  73. Terry
    27 Mar 12
    6:12 pm

  74. @JB, your explanation makes good sense. If it were possible to complain to the ASB for advertising that’s just plain bad, this ad would warrant complaints on that score too.

    But I hope you’re a good lawyer as I don’t fancy your prospects as a copywriter.

  75. AdGrunt
    27 Mar 12
    6:41 pm

  76. Heh, JB. It appears you don’t understand the recondite difference between imply and infer. I (and this shabby copy) may imply; you may infer. They are independent facets to be confirmed, or in this case proven.

    Here you go dear: http://grammartips.homestead.com/imply.html

    You then go on (I really don’t know what law school you went to, but ask for your money back) to “beg the question” whether this will make young men not wash.

    It appears that your GP chum has a similar level of qualification to you. Whilst a broadly undesirable concept and hardly to be encouraged, urine is sterile. Your old chap is, in the grand scheme of places you touch, a relatively clean one.

    Unless you’ve been partaking in buggery.

    The question you really need to ask yourself is – are you marking yourself out as a wise, upstanding member of society, labouring for a better world?

    Or a twunt with a misguided sense of self-importance and moral righteousness?

    Ask your friends / partner / colleagues if you’re unsure. Sorry if they laugh at you.

    Overall from your poor reasoning and grasp of anything, I suspect you’re not a lawyer and are actually related to this sack of shit campaign, so I’d suggest a good scrub down all over my son.

  77. WWIP.
    27 Mar 12
    7:30 pm

  78. Given their all serial wankers – perfect subject for a lawyer…

  79. Groucho
    27 Mar 12
    9:04 pm

  80. JB on the comment count I’d say you’re fucked, so why not fuck off?

  81. Pappy
    27 Mar 12
    9:39 pm

  82. I find this ad obtuse.
    It’s gotten more legs from this than its original placement.

  83. JB
    27 Mar 12
    9:43 pm

  84. AdGrunt, you appear to struggle to express yourself without resorting to abuse and disparagement. Nothing like anonymity to embolden the gutless.

    You say the complainant does not understand the difference between “imply” and “infer” despite my first comment demonstrating that I do:

    “And I do know the difference between “infer” and “imply” (does AdGrunt), and I believe the ad implies what I said it did.”

    I know it has escaped your notice, but I have said several times that it is what the ad implies that is of concern.

    But what does AdGrunt mean when he says:

    “Not a very good lawyer. Doesn’t get the difference between inference and instruction.”

    If you’re being consistent, this implies that you think the ad “infers” rather than “instructs”. Even if the ad could “infer”, what of it? This is the most sense I can make of AdGrunt’s confusing comment anyway.

    I don’t “beg the question”, as you say, I merely apprehend that such copy is counterproductive in light of the more responsible public health message: you might not be influenced by this ad but others might well be.

    I often prefer to not touch the tapware in the pub if I have not touched anything besides my old fella, but my complaint referred to number twos as well. But you have overlooked this as well so you can share you knowledge of uric acid. But what about the other nasties people might harbour on the dicks? It is not, after all, about the urine, which is not meant to be touched, or is this not your experience?

    You set yourself up as some kind of health expert by espousing that because urine is sterile a penis is relatively clean even though urine in the urethra has no impact on the hygiene of a penis. You believe this shit? As for buggery, there are many other ways a penis could harbour bacteria: lack of cleaning, any kind of sexual intercourse, urinary tract infections, STDs and so on.

    Yet you go on to suggest that I am making myself out to be something I am not while using a pretentious and inappropriate word such as “recondite” to describe a distinction, between “imply” and “infer”, that is far from obscure.

    You take the time to disparage the qualifications of a GP about whom you know nothing and question whether I am in fact a lawyer because you think my reasoning is poor even though I express my views relatively dispassionately and in a reasoned manner while you resort to abuse and insults while drawing false inferences about my understanding of grammar which a cursory reading of my comment would tell you were wrong.

    But you’re AdGrunt and, for reasons which your instant posts do not make clear, Tim Burrowes has stated that he values your “entertaining, irreverent, informative” and clearly prolific contributions to the comments section of this site.

    From my perspective, AdGrunt, and those like him, lowers the tone of the site and causes ill will and demonstrates a palpably low sense of decency, respect and, it appears, reason.

    My complaint has nothing to do with “morals” and self-importance. It is about public health and, funnily enough, those interested in such issues are often the more liberal whereas you carry on like an oppressive prat who is threatened by someone being more qualified than them to the point of questioning whether they are lawyer (as if it really matters to the debate – but you seem to think a lawyer is something to behold or why else would you question whether I was one?) and suggest I am related to this “sack of shit campaign” (why would anyone want to draw attention to this lousy ad?) and then suggest “a good scrub down all over my son” in a most tasteless and condescending tone.

    For Tim’s information, AdGrunt’s comments could still be “irreverent” if he were capable of responding to his fellow readers with respect. There is nothing entertaining about AdGrunt’s post above and far from being “informative”, it shows a lack of comprehension and witlessly promulgates falsehoods as fact.

    Go your hardest, AdGrunt; I won’t waste my time responding again: the more intelligent readers can see your posts for what they are; I just couldn’t overlook exposing the stupidity and hypocrisy of someone who responds as nastily, illogically and rudely as you do.

  85. AdGrunt
    27 Mar 12
    10:32 pm

  86. Tissue or toughen-up pill, princess? I respect insight, logic, understanding and wit. Not OCD paranoia.

    If you think this ad has even the vaguest, most remote influence on public health, then you should prepare yourself for a shock from the ASB and anyone else of sane mind. Your mum and teddy bear don’t count.

    Your reasoning is remarkably similar to that of MTR and her like. Overlooking the third person effect and frankly making stuff up. Has this ad caused you to not wash your hands as a result of seeing it? Do you know of anyone it has? Have you mentioned this train of logic to anyone you respect?

    The rest of what you write is emotional twaddle. And from what I can see in your logic, reasoning and grasp of reality, I wish you well in your career outside law.

  87. JB
    27 Mar 12
    11:05 pm

  88. Give it a rest, AdGrunt, before you disappear up your own fundament; you’re becoming increasingly, err, “recondite”.

  89. 1516
    28 Mar 12
    12:06 am

  90. I think this advertisement is misleading because it casts an impression that Carlton Draft is beer.

    I would personally wash my hands after touching Carlton Draft…

  91. JB
    28 Mar 12
    8:20 am

  92. While none thinks I’d make a good ‘writer
    At least they can see I’m a fighter
    But those who are ‘trary
    Should three times say “Hail Mary”
    For suggesting no copy that’s tighter!

  93. Groucho
    28 Mar 12
    9:15 am

  94. @ JB sometimes people make them selves such a target that people can’t resist. I will feel really bad about doing this, like when you kick a mangy puppy, but here goes: You identify yourself as a lawyer. If you expect special consideration because of this affliction ( like the mangy puppy) you’re going to be disappointed – all who enter here do so at their own peril. (As an aside though most conditions can be treated and being a lawyer is no different though I’m told when the broom comes out of your arse your backbone can give out)

    Your argument is based on two points, firstly that the copy is bad, and secondly that the item will encourage the dirty bastards not to wash after they handle them selves. You clearly have not visited too many Arab countries. Now the copy is aimed at drinkers of draught beer, or at least a brown liquid that masquerades as such. Even you will realise (or perhaps not) that we are not dealing with a sophisticated audience here. These guys are your average users of the public defender and as such need to be addressed in simple terms. Rather like lawyers I suppose, so a basic message is needed. But not a stupid one, so your suggestion is ruled out. Secondly you somehow think that a viewing of this item will forever change the hand washing habits of all males. Here is some news for you: advertising, particularly the outdoor form, is about as powerful as your opinion. The viewer will see it, if they happen to be sober enough and they haven’t been bored into a coma by reading your post , chuckle, and carry on wallowing in the wit of the work. They will still pick their nose, scratch their arse, and fondle their best friend as they did before. They may pause and reflect upon your sad obsession with matters excretory but probably not. So, if you cease to comment on this item (or at least confine your comments within the range of your ability and experience) we’ll stay away from the bench in the High Court in case you turn up there pleading the case for compulsory fuckwittedness.

  95. JB
    28 Mar 12
    10:34 am

  96. Groucho, you flatter yourself with that monicker which implies that we’re in for a far more entertaining read whereas your supposedly witty, but mostly rude and misguided, commentary:

    - infers far more into my complaint and subsequent comments than I wrote, e.g. I did not state or imply that people would exchange good habits for bad or bad habits would become irredeemably entrenched, merely that, in the context of the costly contrary health messages of government agencies, the unhelpfulness of the ad is not justified by the quality or humour of its copy;

    - I owned up to being the “not-very-good-lawyer” and expected no favours, not least from halfwits who cannot express themselves without belittling others;

    - we live in Australia, not Arabia, the implied hygiene standards of which country, if much worse than ours as you disrespectfully imply, would go no way to boosting your argument that the message in the Caaarlton ad is in any way appropriate; rather the comparison supports the contrary view that we should do all we reasonably can do to eschew lower hygiene standards;

    - You then, quite erroneously, classify drinkers of draught beer as being from a lower demographic (i.e. users of the “public defender”) which, if true, would add even more weight to any argument that this typically less-well-educated group of consumers should not be led to take heart about any unhygienic ways by ads containing such contrary health messages; or do you really believe these types are less susceptible to media influence than the doctors, accountants, lawyers, admen and other suits who can all be seen enjoying a Golden Ale or some inferior beverage, on tap, at the Occy and thousands of other pubs around Australia?

    - I do not object to the simplicity of the message which, being OOH, is necessarily succinct and capable of being understood at 60km/h; if it is not yet clear, I object to the CONTENT of the message, namely, the implied view that Carlton has no issue with, or conscientious objection to, the concept of men shaking their willies or wiping their arses before using the same hand to pass a twenty to the barmaid who then reaches for myriad customers’ schooner glass;

    - You have to ask yourself: Is this ad, or any other ad of comparable humour and quality that contains such a contrary health or safety message, really so good that it is worth spending a breath or a character defending? But this is not about the quality; it is just that if it were quality (ie really humourous, eg it effectively, if not directly, took the piss out of men who did not wash their hands) then it probably would not raise health concerns and it would justify its existence – just as the Hahn Light ads depicting generally unacceptable behavior did;

    - I will share your ill-informed comment about OOH media being about as powerful as my opinion with Charmaine Moldrich of OMA so that you might be set straight on your unusual views about OOH media;

    – While this matter is within my experience purely by virtue as my roles as a consumer, reasonably intelligent correspondent, parent and concerned citizen, your messages causes me (and no doubt others) to question what you really know about human behaviour, advertising (particularly the impact of OOH on which clients spend hundreds of millions each year) and reading words on a page without misinterpreting them;

    - And you think I’m the “fuckwit”?

  97. Groucho
    28 Mar 12
    11:18 am

  98. @ JB I hope you washed your hands after you wrote that crock of shit.

  99. Pitch Doctor
    28 Mar 12
    11:31 am

  100. JB, you refer to “Arabia” as a country. Your knowledge of geography is as impressive as your knowledge of consumer behaviour and marketing communications. Your defence of your point of view reminds me of the saying “when you are in a hole stop digging” Please post your full contact details so that anyone who wants to win their case can go somewhere else.

  101. JB
    28 Mar 12
    12:11 pm

  102. Pitch Doctor and Groucho, is that the best you can do? No substantive arguments, just slagging off my writings and my abilities as a lawyer?

    Whether Arabia is a group of countries or a single country as a I may, carelessly, have implied by referring to Groucho’s so-called “Arab countries” as “Arabia” is neither here nor there.

    That your only contribution is to:

    - pick me up on this geographic irrelevancy so you can disparage my presumed knowledge of consumer behaviour and marketing (when I have opined on neither);

    - and sought to impune my abilities as a lawyer,

    speaks volumes about your ability to address the substantive issue, which is not whether Arabia is a peninsula or a country, or consumer behaviour, but whether the apparent condoning of potentially unsafe hygiene practices is an acceptable consequence of an ad of this quality.

    I think not.

    But you and your like seem to be so busy insulting me that you are incapable of addressing the issue and the question that is at the crux of my complaint.

    You, Groucho and AdGrunt, through your lacklustre analysis, insults, misinterpretations and irrelevant come-backs paint yourselves as Neanderthals.

    Groucho, for his part, can only cast his net so imprecisely as to call my last post, which methodically analysed and responded to his errant nonsense, as “a crock of shit”.

    You really do a great job of casting yourselves as immature, low-brow grunts incapable of polite discourse. Charming. I trust you are not account execs or entrusted with any customer-facing activities.

    The Three Dolts indeed.

  103. G. O'Graphy
    28 Mar 12
    12:12 pm

  104. Hey Pitch Doctor. Arabia is a region that roughly equates to the Arabian Peninsula (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen etc.) plus some surrounding areas. JB did not say (or infer) that it was a country. Just be careful critising others knowledge of geography while you skate on thin ice yourself.

  105. John Grono
    28 Mar 12
    12:18 pm

  106. JB, do yourself a favour and turn spell-check on – you’re just providing ammunition. It’s ‘impugn’. I suggest that you don’t engage the services of a copy-writer (or copy-righter) as I suspect you won’t get on that well.,

  107. Groucho
    28 Mar 12
    12:24 pm

  108. I can’t speak for the others JB but if you post something worth commenting on with more than derision I’ll do it.

  109. JB
    28 Mar 12
    12:32 pm

  110. Like you can talk, Groucho, about derision; I reserve my derisory comments for the end and in response to far worse from you and your kind, not the beginning, middle and end like you and the others.

    Yes, John, typos do happen even with words, not least homophones, that one can normally spell. I did not know there was a spell checker on this page.

    Whatever the case, such typos only give “ammunition” to those seeking to make personal attacks, not anyone capable of addressing the substantive issue of whether the ad is so worthy as to make its implied message about risky behaviour appropriate and acceptable.

  111. Groucho
    28 Mar 12
    12:51 pm

  112. @ G. O Graphy this is cut from JB’s post : ‘we live in Australia, not Arabia, the implied hygiene standards of which country, if much worse than ours as you disrespectfully imply……………’ He did say or infer that it was a country.

    Stop being a prat.

  113. Dave
    28 Mar 12
    1:12 pm

  114. JB – I have found another case for you to handle:

    http://mumbrella.com.au/no-blo.....ent-127628

    Those bastards at Grill’d are openly using advertising to push discrimination against a quite a valid subset of our community.

    Please save us from this madness!

  115. Sally
    28 Mar 12
    1:21 pm

  116. JB I’m still with you. Have no opinions on your lawyerness, just agree that there’s no good in trivialising poor hygiene, making it a nudgenudge almost matey thing. There’s enough peer-reviewed research out there supporting vital importance of hygiene. A bout of gastro in the family is just appalling, especially for vulnerable people (and washing hands is a habit to get into whatever has been produced in dunnies, for that person patronising my earlier post).
    And JB, whatever the quality of your limericks and slogan attempts, you do sound happier. Good on you. All the best.

  117. Dave
    28 Mar 12
    1:24 pm

  118. On a more serious note, what is the drama all about JB?

    If the ad had read: The Carlton Draught tap. The only tap men SHOULD use at the pub. I would have been right there with you, as the last thing we need is more bogan Carlton Draught drinkers not washing their hands.

    But as it reads now, the ad only serves to make fun of the fact that the majority of men who use the toilets in pubs don’t wash their hands.

    Now I know you are a lawyer so I’ll leave the detail up to you, but I do work in health marketing and do a lot of work in public health- so I can say that I am more of an expert on health messages that you are as a lawyer.

    The ad actually has more chance of having a positive impact on public health. It makes light of a public health issue in a language that the target market understands. It is this type of language that helps bring these issues into the forefront of people’s minds. Someone in the target audience who is at a pub with this ad around, will be more likely to wash their hands so that they can be ‘safe’ when one of their bogan friends makes a joke about whether they used the tap.

    The ad in no way infers that anyone is less of a man for using any other tap.

    So my advice JB, get over it. Im sure you have billable clients you should be putting your attention to.

  119. JB
    28 Mar 12
    1:35 pm

  120. Don’t worry, G.O, In Groucho’s demographic, you can’t just be mistaken, or have your error politely pointed out to you, you have to be labeled a prat as well, essentially for being human. Except in Groucho’s case, well, Groucho is never mistaken, he just dismisses ideas and words he cannot understand (like the difference between “imply” and “infer”, I guess) as a “crock of shit”.

    And Groucho’s calling G.O. a prat?

  121. JB
    28 Mar 12
    2:13 pm

  122. Firstly, it is a rare pleasure to read a reasoned and courteous reply. Thank you.

    You might be right, Dave, or you might be wrong. As that is the case, the ad takes a quite unnecessary gamble with public health, about which my complaint is about more so than advertising, per se.

    The trouble is that the statement about men not using any other tap in the pub is made neutrally without any accompanying value judgement express or implied. It attempts to be humorous without being particularly funny or parodying the unwanted behaviour to make it less acceptable.

    If it did that, or had some humorous aspect that led people to view such behaviour with disdain or some degree of irksomeness, I might agree with you.

    However, by stating this fact so neutrally, the ad appears to condone, and treat as normal, behaviour which rightly should be actively discouraged, rather than be overlooked or normalised.

    Such a message is simply unhelpful to those promoting the contrary message. And if it is not helpful to them, it is not helpful to society, and that means you and me.

  123. Dave
    28 Mar 12
    3:08 pm

  124. JB- the fact that the two of us have a totally different perspective of what the ad text is achieving proves the point that your ‘official’ complaint about this ad has no basis.

    From your perspective you take the statement to be taking a gamble with public health. That is your subjective take on the ad, and is not the intention of the ad.

    This makes the ad annoying to you (and to others who may see it from your perspective) but is not a reason to ban an ad from publication.

    If you were to conduct focus group testing of the target audience for Carlton Draught with this ad (which they probably already did) you would find that the only message they came away with was about beer, not anything to do with public health.

    While you have every right to object to the ad, its doubtful that you are in the target audience for this beer. Unless you have substantial proof from the audience that this billboard is having a bad impact, then you’re just going to keep sounding like political correctness gone mad.

  125. JB
    28 Mar 12
    3:19 pm

  126. Thanks, Sally.

    I don’t believe the more laissez faire posters have given sufficient thought to the fact that this ad is condoning non-handwashing in an HOSPITALITY setting where food and beverages are consumed and utensils, trays and condiments etc shared by many patrons.

    The ad could equally have read: “The only other tap men should touch at the pub” and thereby not been as counterproductive as the present ad is.

    Positive message, same effect.

    As it is, in this forum at least, the complaint has elicited mostly negative comments about the characteristics of Caaarlton Draught. Maybe Carlton really is lowest after all!.

  127. beezlebub
    28 Mar 12
    3:56 pm

  128. wow, AdGrunt and Groucho were completely owned by JB

    faux-intellectuals versus pseudo-intellectuals – the pseudo wins!

  129. Groucho
    28 Mar 12
    4:27 pm

  130. @ beezlebub aka JB that sort of amateur trick entirely befits you. The only thing you owned was a wasted day.

  131. JB
    28 Mar 12
    4:32 pm

  132. Dave, the intention of the ad is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ad’s potential, in its current form, to counter or reduce the efficacy of contrary public health messages and campaigns that cost taxpayers millions each year.

    Nor does my complaint have anything whatsoever to do with “political correctness”; it is purely a health and safety issue: less hand washing = more disease transmission.

    The ad does not appear to make the slightest bit of fun about men who do not wash their hands: it makes no value judgement about that behaviour at all and simply acknowledges it as an almost unremarkable fact. I wish they had parodied such behaviour rather than merely acknowledging it.

    The ad does not annoy me in the least. I am simply appalled that a multi-billion dollar company and its agency could be so thoughtless as to broadcast such a counter-productive message. The ad has no redeeming feature that makes the underlying message about poor hygiene acceptable. Next time you catch a cold or flu, think how hand washing is acknowledged as a first line defence and how this ad might increase acceptance among men that the opposite behavior is the norm.

    In terms of focus groups, if you had such insight that you could know the outcome of focus group testing before undertaking it, you could save clients millions of dollars and be a very wealthy man. But no one can do that so your “insight” about what people would or would not say if presented with the ad is really just supposition.

    Frankly I would be surprised if some people didn’t say: “eek, guys don’t wash their hands in the bathroom, do they?” while others might join the dots on the public health implications of such behavior in an HOSPITALITY setting where food & beverages are sold.

    Substantial proof from the target audience is not what is required. Everyone who sees this ad takes it in. Rather, I would have thought expert opinion on whether such an ad is counterproductive and contrary to public health messages and poses a risk that some may take it as a green light to wash their hands less often would be sufficient reason to take it down.

    The fact is that there are millions of ways that CUB can promote its beer on such sites, none of which need to condone behaviour that is risky and on which taxpayers spend millions of dollars discouraging.

    That CUB and its agency think such advertising does not condone, if not encourage, unsavoury behaviour or is somehow redeemed by its level of humour speaks poorly about that client and its agency.

    In terms of your experience in health marketing, has that much at all to do with public & community health, which substantially is about prevention, or are you flogging remedies to the suckers with colds and ‘flu on their way to and from the pub?

  133. JB
    28 Mar 12
    5:38 pm

  134. No, Groucho, I am not beezlebub, I mean, why would I refer to myself in such terms? Or are you really so achingly stupid?

    My form of expression is quite different, eg:

    There was a young man called AdGrunt
    Who delighted in causing affront
    While he wrote with such haute
    And got many a goat
    No Aussie would call him a cunt.

  135. Groucho
    28 Mar 12
    5:41 pm

  136. @ JB I would have thought, given the tide of opinion against you, the number of people taking the piss out of you, and the clearly enervating effect of mounting an argument that you would have given up, retired hurt, or exhausted, or just told your protagonists to fuck off by now. I have to admire your doggedness and your ability to ignore brickbats. Most people would have collapsed from lack of ego by now. So keep it up, and may your debating skills benefit from the practice in direct proportion to your skills. As you sleep do ponder the fact that it is but one poster in hundreds of messages that Carlton will broadcast this year and you really do need to conserve your outrage lest you run out before you send them cowering to the mens room to practice what you appear to have been doing all day.

  137. Archie
    28 Mar 12
    6:56 pm

  138. Groucho you are way out of your depth here mate

  139. AdGrunt
    28 Mar 12
    7:20 pm

  140. Are we still feeding the troll?

    This JB character is clearly not a lawyer.

    Sven the post-boy is back, FFS guys.

    As you all were. nothing to see here.

  141. JB
    28 Mar 12
    8:37 pm

  142. Groucho, I have no desire to engage in any further discourse with someone whose wit is exemplified by contributions such as:

    “JB on the comment count I’d say you’re fucked, so why not fuck off?”

    I mean, really, is this the level and quality of your thoughts and ability to express them?

    You’re hardly sound like the AB demographics Tim’s advertisers are aiming for, are you?

    So I will call it a day on all fronts, not with any sense of defeat but more in amazement (and some embarrassment for the publishers of this site) for the quality of readership on display, except, of course, to say:

    There was a young man known as Groucho
    Who fancied himself as a gaucho
    But in any discourse
    He was more ass than his horse
    For this gaucho was half a muchacho.

    Adios amigos!

  143. Groucho
    29 Mar 12
    8:43 am

  144. @ AdGrunt, sadly it seems you are right. The sudden appearance of Archie suggests a multiple identity problem too. The doggerel is fun though isn’t it?
    He has no desire to engage in further discourse so maybe he has a client today.
    Another one for the cells then. The judge I’m sure will be neither wiser or better informed.

  145. JB
    29 Mar 12
    9:36 am

  146. I’m sorry, Groucho, but never trust a lawyer then they say “I have nothing more to say on the matter.”

    First, the aptly-named AdGrunt’s statement of “fact” that “the JB character is CLEARLY not a lawyer” has less basis than any of the opinions he has expressed on this page.

    However, I have to admit, Ja, I am really am Sven the Swedish limiricist – Sweden’s No 1 limiricist mind – due to such recent work as:

    He says I’m not a lawyer
    But when I’m acting for ya
    I give me best
    And never rest
    I’m Huck to your Tom Sawyer

    But no, AdGrunt’s screeching about me not being a lawyer reminds me of the final scene of a Silent Witness / Wire in the Blood / Luther episode when the psychopathic suspect is cornered and finally realises no one is listening to them:

    NOOOOOOOO!!!

    THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

    JB IS NOT A LAWYER I TELL YA. DON”T LISTEN TO HIM.

    HE IS THE ANTICHRIST.

    ONLY LISTEN TO MEEEEEEE: ADGRUNTTTTT!!!

    JB IS FOOLING YOU ALL.

    ONLY I CAN SAVE YOU!!!

    Now speaking of AdGrunt (just add Grunt to lower any discourse?) what if he is from NuZuland? He would not have understud Svun the lumurucusts lust effort. So here’s one he might get:

    There was a young man named AdGrunt
    Who pussed more in, than outside, the tunt
    But all of the strain
    Scrambled his brain
    And left him not making much suns.

    Cheers
    Svun, I mean Sven. No, I mean, who else did you say I was?

  147. Dave
    29 Mar 12
    9:53 am

  148. JB – the ad is promoting risky behaviour???

    Mate, its an AD FOR BEER. Lighten up!

    For one, people do not take advertising messages as gospel (or law), they are advertising messages, for beer, and people know that.

    To really keep harping on that that this ad, as bad as it may be, is countering other public health messages in society shows how simplistic your thinking really is.

    Glad that you are leaving this topic alone now, because as a lawyer (if in fact you are one) you should know when you are onto a loser.

  149. JB
    29 Mar 12
    2:26 pm

  150. Dave, it’s only a complaint about a beer ad condoning unhygienic practices – LIGHTEN UP! But the product is beside the point, it is the other, unnecessary message about hand washing to which I object.

    Effective advertising often relies more heavily on its effect on the subconscious rather than the conscious. Subtle approval, as in this ad, could be more effective than a billboard commanding people to wash their hands.

    I left the topic alone some time ago, in the scheme of this thread, and have been more interested in highlighting the appalling manner in which cowards conduct a discourse under cover of anonymity – typically using language they would not use if their names were revealed or which would get them a punch in the nose (not from me, mind) if they said it face to face. I know this is of some interest to Tim and other readers.

    But as you have sought to trivialise this very real health issue, I will let you know what a professor of medicine at UNSW Public Health & Community Medicine said in an email I received a few moments ago:

    “Thank you for your concern relating to the cornerstone of good public health – hand hygiene. …

    Microbiological contamination of hands is complex, and related to what surfaces the hands touch. There will be little or no microbiological indication for hand hygiene after urination if men don’t touch anything other than their own penis (the microbiological flora on this skin surface is similar to that of your forearm hence little risk of causing cross infections after urination) and think about all the times you shake hands with men and women whose hands have more mirocorganisms on them than a man’s penis!

    But this isn’t a good reason why men shouldn’t wash hands after urinating – it’s all about habit.

    This billboard would be funny if it weren’t sending such a poor message, habitually hand hygiene practice is imperative for reducing cross infection of gastro, colds and respiratory infections etc. [ends]”

    Now, as I have written above, if I can take a pee by only touching my fly and my dick I, too, will often avoid touching the taps. However, that is not always the case and, I believe, the Professor (who is presenting at a World Health Organization collaborative work on hand hygiene today) makes a valid point.

    But you are entitled to your opinion, based as it is on years of experience marketing in the health care sector. And the Professor is entitled to hers, which, happily coincides with mine.

    I believe expert evidence such as this will be given considerable weight by the Board.

    GMH could not show a car driving legally but unsafely (contrary to public safety messages) so why should Fosters AP be able to condone other unsafe conduct with far wider health impacts – PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS QUITE UNNECESSARY, FOR THE EFFECTIVE PROMOTION OF ITS PRODUCT, TO DO SO?

    In terms of your two sleights:

    - as far as my thinking being “simplistic”, you are the one who thinks “it is only a beer ad” and only one of us (not to mention the Professor of Medicine) is thinking less simplistically about it. So who really, is the more simplistic one in this exchange?

    - why you and the others would care whether I am a lawyer or not is beyond me (I was asked by a mUmBRELLA editor what industry I was in and I told them); and why you would cast doubt on my word on this point without any basis, equally so.

    Nor do I think this is a “loser”. A loser is someone who is incapable of addressing an issue without making personal attacks, as you and the others have.

    Disappointing, Dave, I thought you were much better than that (and clearly you are still more thoughtful than “Grunt & Groucho”).

    Am I sounding more like a lawyer yet?

    Cheers
    Sven, FFS

  151. beezlebub
    29 Mar 12
    3:21 pm

  152. AdGrunt and Groucho owned again!!!

  153. Dave
    29 Mar 12
    3:37 pm

  154. I thought you had finished with this JB.

    You are definitely onto a loser, and I am sure you will see this when the ASB come back and say REJECTed :)

    Your long-winded and continuous attempts to try to explain what was quite obviously not-so-well thought out complaint. If you are going to hang your hat on receiving one email from a professor who yes, can talk about the amount of bacteria on your dick, then you’re a sad sad case.

    This is not about hand hygiene, its about advertising. So unless you can get an advertising or social marketing expert to verify your perspective as fact – they are still only the thoughts of some pissed off lawyer who can’t decipher a simple advertising message.

    And please, if you’re going to write yet another reply, keep it to under 100 words. What is it with lawyers and your love of endless boring words.

  155. Blue
    29 Mar 12
    3:47 pm

  156. I think the biggest problem is that JB dared to suggest he could write better copy than a copywriter. Then had the temerity to suggest such a thing on a forum populated by very sensitive advertising types. “Let’s all get the outsider! Raaa!”.

    As they say, as soon as you start criticizing people’s grammar or spelling, you’ve lost the arguement.*

    I’m just waiting for Reductio ad Hitlerum to rear its ugly head.

    *Go on, you know you want to.

  157. JB
    29 Mar 12
    3:56 pm

  158. No, Dave, it’s not about advertising. The unhelpful message happens to be on a billboard, but I have no problem with beer ads, per se. It is corporations making irresponsible statements or committing harmful acts that are quite unnecessary for the success of their businesses.

    I would be more brief in earlier posts, however, multiple thoughtless and spurious remarks and transgressions of logic generally take many times more words to refute than than to make.

    Ironically, this reply is now well under 100 words.

    HOWEVER! I feel compelled to point out that your (hypocrtitical?) request for such brevity was uttered at the 140-word mark of your diatribe that so artlessly and disingenuously dismissed the opinion of an expert in the only field that will be truly relevant to the success of the complaint: PUBLIC HEALTH – because your worth it.

  159. JB
    29 Mar 12
    4:00 pm

  160. I wish I could edit that last “your” in the above post . . .

  161. JB
    29 Mar 12
    4:06 pm

  162. Beezlebub, thanks very much: I’ve never “owned” an adman before.

    How many more contributions, if any(!), must I make before I can add Dave to my collection?

    Surely he is losing altitude with smoke billowing from his wings . . . bail now, Dave, before it;s too late!

  163. JB
    29 Mar 12
    4:08 pm

  164. Also, thanks to those who contributed as Devil’s Advocate – there’s no better way to develop a comprehensive submission.

  165. JB
    29 Mar 12
    4:28 pm

  166. Writing limericks about AdGrunt without referring to him in the most crudely obvious way has not been easy without assuming a foreign accent . . . and I apologise to our Kiwi friends and neighbours for this final offering in honour of a remarkable piece of work, the one, the only (except for on thousands of other public internet forums around the world where people of his calibre are a dime a dozen) AdGrunt:

    There was a young man named AdGrunt
    Many facts did he conjure, invunt
    But when he pussed off the ‘tisers
    The Mercks and the Pfizers
    Tim made him some shoes from cemunt.

    Arrivederci, Adland!

  167. JB (on behalf of my friend, Patrick)
    29 Mar 12
    6:01 pm

  168. Now this is a limerick fart better than anything I could pen:

    There was an arsehole named AdGrunt
    Who was known by his stature: Runt
    One day in a flux, his name got mixed up
    And his friends now all call him bank manager

  169. Dave
    29 Mar 12
    6:22 pm

  170. There is no steam to lose here because I am not the complainant. You can be as smug as you want but you already know that this complaint has made you look a fool.

    So what’s your next crusade oh saviour of public health? Will it be a ban on hand shaking? Bet your crackpot professor can give you some great nonsense to fuel that.

    And this is about advertising, not about public health. This is why it’s on an ad industry forum. Wake up and look at your surroundings. It’s a brand new day and the stupid ad will still be around long after your silly complaint.

    Btw, when I said 100 words before, I didn’t mean 100 words in 5 different posts. And considering you have time to count my words and write silly comPlaints, it shows how much of a crappy lawyer you must be…..

  171. Dave
    29 Mar 12
    6:31 pm

  172. Concise JB that’s the word you have to remember :) concise. Keep repeating it, them when you get the urge to spew out more words repeat it again.

    Have fun waiting for your response of failure from the ASB!

  173. Louie the Fly
    30 Mar 12
    7:49 am

  174. JB I always wash my hands before AND after getting a Brief. However…I admire your tenacity and sportsmanship – just remember that your adversaries above have time on their hands and delight in playing you. And that is all they are doing. Methinks that they wish they were in the law. I further think Tim has given them a false imprimatur to comment in the past (understandable considering the fuel they provide). I’d like someone like you on my side in litigation. Unlike others of your profession you actually have passion. In fact, if I was in charge of casting, I’d put You and Groucho on the same team. And then I’d sick you on AdGrunt. (Interesting that the word Cunt got through without a mention BTW)… And Bob, I recall you only wash one hand after pissing.

  175. Groucho
    30 Mar 12
    8:18 am

  176. @ JB one imagines Patrick is an imaginary friend. Like Beezelbub and Archie……………

  177. AndrewL
    30 Mar 12
    10:02 am

  178. JB
    27 Mar 12
    9:43 pm
    Go your hardest, AdGrunt; I won’t waste my time responding again: the more intelligent readers can see your posts for what they are; I just couldn’t overlook exposing the stupidity and hypocrisy of someone who responds as nastily, illogically and rudely as you do.

    jeez, that was painful to get through.

    at the end of it all the ad isn’t going to win a lion in Cannes nor is it going to get pulled down by the ASB.

    move on nothing to see here

  179. Offal Spokesperson
    30 Mar 12
    7:24 pm

  180. Geebus.. just get a room kids

  181. Random Drop In
    31 Mar 12
    12:41 am

  182. @Blue

    *Criticise

  183. Wild Oscar
    2 Apr 12
    4:58 pm

  184. urine, faeces. You also missed semen.

  185. Maverick
    3 Apr 12
    1:12 pm

  186. Personally, I always make sure to wash my hands thoroughly after being in contact with a lawyer.

    Get a life JB, no one cares about a meaningless beer ad, and no one cares about a meaningless wowser.

    Go get laid and calm down.

  187. Disillusioned Youth
    3 Apr 12
    2:40 pm

  188. JB, Groucho, AdGrunt and Dave,

    Weren’t you supposed to leave this sort of childish behaviour behind in Primary school?

  189. Ian
    4 Apr 12
    10:20 am

  190. JB, you are clearly revelling far too much in the attention you are receiving on this blog, which makes me suspect your true intentions in the first place. If you are a lawyer, as you claim, why are you spending so much time on our industry blog? Just look at the length of your replies.

    Your complaint is pathetic. And it’s this kind of pathetic small mindedness that makes our job so difficult, and generally hinders wider society with bureaucracy and red tape. You’re probably the kind of curtain twitcher who complains about his neighbour’s bins being left out, or an overhanging tree.

    It’s just an ad, my friend. A piece of harmless street furniture. Some men will chuckle at it, most will ignore it, as you should. You need to get a life, or go on holiday, and concentrate your energy on something more worthwhile when you get back.

  191. Richard Moss
    5 Apr 12
    11:39 am

  192. Hang on a minute. I think I have cracked the code here.
    Could this be a deliberate plug for Justerini and Brooks.?

  193. AdGrunt
    5 Apr 12
    1:58 pm

  194. My money was on name metathesis.

  195. JB
    5 Apr 12
    4:33 pm

  196. They say the holidays aren’t the same without J&B:

    http://zubyzubyzuby.wordpress......as-advert/

    although at this time of year I guess we would have to say:

    esus reathes.

  197. Groucho
    5 Apr 12
    5:26 pm

  198. I’m with Ian.

  199. Craig
    6 Apr 12
    7:43 am

  200. Actually washing your hands with beer is quite hygienic. The alcohol works as a disinfectant.

    Water is useless at killing bacteria, and think of all the germs that have accumulated on the bathroom tap handles that you must touch to turn on the water in the first place. The bathroom is possibly the least hygienic part of the pub.

    It’s far more sensible to dip your hands into a pint, presented to you in a hygienically and individually sterilised schooner glass.

  201. Barfly
    6 Apr 12
    12:50 pm

  202. A pigeon just stole my chips; it’s Good Friday and I’ve nothing to drink. No beer and not a hand to piss on. This thread has made me very thirsty.

  203. Wucking Furries...
    11 Apr 12
    9:27 pm

  204. It’s not instructing or encouraging men to not wash their hands, nor is it implying it’s manly not to.

    It’s observational, look at the tense it’s written in.

    No case, tin-pot.

  205. Another lawyer
    12 Apr 12
    6:32 pm

  206. It is unmanly for men to wash their hands…

    Whenever I am in the work loo and I see a man washing his hands, I always say, “hey princess, where’s your tiara?”

  207. JB
    13 Apr 12
    8:57 am

  208. I would have thought an exchange such as this was sufficiently rare, if not unique, opportunity for members of the ad industry to engage with an ASB Complainant and to demonstrate their thoughtfulness and intelligence by showing due regard for an issue about which many advertisers and the ad industry is so sensitive – self regulation.

    Lamentably, most have failed not only to grasp the opportunity in such a manner, but have demonstrated starkly a distinct lack of sensitivity about the broader issues at hand, no doubt providing opponents confirmation that self-regulation simply can not work, particularly if the people on this forum are representative of Adland.

    Even the author of the allegedly offending copy might have conceded: “Yes, I can see the ad is not helpful and may even inculcate attitudes that are contrary to the prevailing health standard.”

    Compare another Carlton Draught ad (facing west on Broadway near UTS) that, taken literally, would offend the prevailing health standard but can get away with it because it is sufficiently absurd. It reads, (more or less):

    CARLTON DRAUGHT.
    BEST ENJOYED STRAIGHT FROM THE TAP.

    BUT NOT MANY PUBS STILL
    LET YOU DRINK IT THAT WAY.

    No one seriously considers that this ad will lead to men attempting to drink from the tap, so even though such behaviour would be contrary to health standards, the ad would not be likely to be held contrary to section 2.6 of the Code.

    However, as the only thing that can be said with any certainty about the other Carlton Draught Advertisement is that it:

    - is contrary to other messages on public health and therefore unhelpful;

    - might lead to lower rates of compliance with health guidelines in such messages; if so,

    - would likely lead to higher rates of transmission of infectious diseases within the community; if so,

    - would result in greater illness and suffering within the community and absenteeism.

    Now, while the “drinking Carlton Draught straight from the tap” ad has next to no chance of influencing consumer behaviour, if one can admit that any of the foregoing outcomes is a possibility then, on what basis can the advertisement be excused for putting all of us at greater risk of contracting an infectious disease, be it influenza or a gastrointestinal infection?

    In terms of some correspondents’ comments that the ad is purely “observational” and not “instructive”, I can only shake my head and refer to my view about how unhelpful these views are to an industry that wishes self-regulation to continue.

    But if these people who apparently represent the ad industry in such forums (and do it no favours whatsoever) are still unconvinced, consider potential copy for some other “observational” and “non-instructive” ads:

    “Len had so many Carlton Draguhts he had to take the long way home and still got done for DUI.

    But for that last Carlton Draught, it was worth it.”

    Or

    “Mary thought she had won the jackpot when she came up with the idea of leaving her toddler in the car at the Star.

    Then she actually did.”

    So how is an ad okay if it only “observes” or reflects behaviour that is already occurring in our community, and does not “instruct”?

    No doubt some such correspondents will think, if not openly state: “but drink driving or leaving your child in the car is much worse than not washing your hands” and one can only shake one’s head.

    Others thought this a “moral” issue or that the Complainant was being moralistic when my concern was purely about community health. However, being an ad for an alcoholic beverage one can understand how a less thoughtful correspondent might be tricked into thinking there was a “moral” dimension to the Complaint.

    Others opined that this was not a relevant topic for an ad industry forum(!) despite at its heart it being a story about an ad, potentially, being banned, which subject is addressed on a weekly basis by mUmBRELLA.

    Others simply opined that the Complaint would not be upheld without giving valid reasons and, sadly, many (AdGrunt (AdHominem?), Groucho, Dave, etc etc – no shortage of these types in the ad industry it would seem, if that is indeed the industry that sustains them) clearly lacked the skill and discipline to address rationally the issue at hand and simply fell back to personal abuse.

    For those who think the Complaint will not be upheld, declare yourselves to Robin or Tim at mUmBRELLA before the ASB Board considers the matter; I’ll buy each of you a case of Golden Ale if you’re right provided you each stake the cash equivalent. I am not expecting to be knocked over in the rush . . .

  209. Real Beer Drinker, and a manly man
    13 Apr 12
    10:58 am

  210. I walked into a toilet yesterday and a man was just finishing some graffiti on the wall, which read:

    “Carlton Draft is an awful beer”

    The graffiti was written using his own faeces.

    Fortunately, for others outside of the toilet, he washed his hands. Whilst I didn’t agree with the biological vandalism, I did agree with the message.

    I wonder if he was a lawyer?

  211. JB (on Bondi beach)
    13 Apr 12
    11:33 am

  212. Surely just another case in point (above) against self regulation.

  213. Groucho
    13 Apr 12
    11:50 am

  214. JB, I can’t speak for the others but I don’t lack the the skill and discipline to address rationally the issue at hand,(or ridicule the split infinitive), just the energy to expend on such a stupid, frivilous complaint. It is complaints like this which undermine the credibilty of bodies like the ASB. And it is the use of ridiculous and simplistic reductio ad absurdum arguments like yours which undermine the credibility of lawyers. Not surprised you are on Bondi Beach.

  215. JB
    14 Apr 12
    12:04 pm

  216. Only the ASB can undermine its credibility by its own deeds, not “stupid [and] frivolous [sic] complaints”, just as Groucho does with his own deeds.

    An appropriate decision in respect of the Complaint can only enhance the ASB’s credibility, not undermine it, as Groucho says.

    However, once again, Groucho’s arguments appear quite unencumbered by the constraints of logic or reason.

    Groucho’s continuing forays onto these pages to make snide and, supposedly, belittling remarks, nonsensical assertions and references to “split infinitives” demonstrate time and again that he lacks the discipline to avoid expending time on complaint he finds “stupid [and] frivolous [sic]“.

    The use of Latin phrases cannot disguise the fact that Groucho either lacks or chooses not to apply the intellectual resources to methodically analyse the Complaint which he can only weakly describe as “stupid [and] frivolous [sic]“.

    Unlike Groucho, I have refrained from making personal attacks, however unflattering conclusions about Groucho are growing increasingly had to avoid.

    Perhaps if Groucho could own up to what he does for a living I would have more sympathy and be prepared to overlook his personal attacks. But when a person as childish as Groucho claims that he “does not lack discipline” while expressing himself thus:

    [Groucho
    27 Mar 12
    9:04 pm]

    “JB on the comment count I’d say you’re fucked, so why not fuck off?”

    and

    Groucho
    28 Mar 12 

    11:18 am 


    “@ JB I hope you washed your hands after you wrote that crock of shit.



    he really opens himself up for ridicule.”

    I am sorry, Groucho, but such stupidity on your part really must be exposed, if not punished, unless your experience and/or intellectual stature really is so limited as to warrant more pity than opprobrium.

    Which is it, Bozo?

    Whatever the case, no complaint that, at its heart, apprehends an adverse health outcome for the community can be called stupid or frivolous.
    Just because Groucho does not share the views of a UNSW Professor of Community Medicine that the Advertisement has the potential to undermine the messages in public health campaigns does not make it “stupid” or “frivolous [sic]”, so Groucho is wrong even on that elementary point in his comment.

    But even the Complaint were “stupid”, why would Groucho keep commenting and coming back for more so many times when he finds the whole matter so enervating?

    I can only wonder what Groucho will say if the Board of the ASB upholds the Complaint as to not do so, I suggest, might erode the ASB’s credibility and bring an end to self regulation that little bit closer.

  217. Groucho
    14 Apr 12
    5:13 pm

  218. Put it away JB, put it away.

  219. Pitch Doctor
    14 Apr 12
    6:54 pm

  220. @JB you can’t possibly believe the ASB will uphold your silly complaint can you?

    I look forward to your unreserved apology to each and every person you have criticised here where you admit that you are out of step with reality, contemporary standards, and common sense. It beggars belief that you are serious with this argument and not just having a laugh. The ASB could not possibly agree with you and keep their jobs.

  221. JB
    14 Apr 12
    8:07 pm

  222. Groucho, what do you do for a living? I’d be fascinated to know. You seem remarkably incapable of addressing the substantive issue and compelled to return to an article you think “stupid”. Why so? If I knew you had worked in a mailroom for the past 30 years or were a year 7 student at a New York school for underprivileged youth I would temper my admonishments. Do tell.

    Pitch Doctor, my primary purpose has not been to criticise anyone here (I’ve been relatively restrained in the face of the disparaging comments of so many). However, I have pointed out the manifest flaws in the logic of AdHominem and Bozo and the senselessness of their off-topic and irrelevant disparagements.

    If you and any others are so certain of the ASB’s decision in this matter there is a case of beer in it for you, per my post above.

    However, I am not aware that you or anyone else has had the guts to out yourselves to a mUmBRELLA editor and stake the cash equivalent.

    But what will you say if the Complaint is upheld? Based on your form I will not be holding my breath for an apology.

    But feel free to say now what you would think of the Board if it upheld the Complaint on the grounds that the Advertisement offends a prevailing standard on health and safety (i.e. hand hygiene).

  223. JB
    14 Apr 12
    8:28 pm

  224. . . . and Pitch Doctor, don’t simply call the Complaint “silly”, frame a logical and intelligent statement beginning, for example:

    “The Complaint is silly and should not be upheld because:

    1.
    2.
    3. …

    If just one “opponent” of the Complainant had done this in a compelling manner, instead of targeting their comments (and abuse) at the Complainant, I might have realised the supposed error of my ways. But none has ventured to do so evidential through lack of ability to do so.

    For some reason you and the others find it easier to dish out abuse than mount a cohesive argument!

  225. JB
    14 Apr 12
    9:43 pm

  226. PPS . . it was thoughtless of me to imply that an apology would be necessary if the ASB upheld the Complaint:

    Why should anyone apologise for an honestly held belief or opinion simply because it is not shared by others, be it ASB Board or anyone else?

    Pitch Doctor seems to think I should apologise if the ASB gets it wrong! However, I do not think anyone should apologise if they get it right; nor would I value or want an apology from anyone of the calibre of most of my detractors.

    All I crave is some intelligent, non-abusive comments from people who disagree with my opinion. Meeting that challenge has largely alluded most on this thread and the likes of Dave, Pitch Doctor, AdHominem, Bozo et al.

    Shame really . . . but for some reason it is par for course in anonymous forums that people become vociferous and nasty when they feel that they can’t be identified.

    I think the mark of decency is striving to treat others with respect whether you can take credit for it or not and not making personal attacks just because they cannot be pinned on you.

    What else would AdHominem, Bozo et al and everyone else who inflicts unjustified personal abuse under the cloak of anonymity not stop at if they believed for certain they would not be caught? Rape? Murder? Armed robbery? Fraud?

    The sky is the limit for lowlifes when they think they can get away with it. Lord of the Flies writ large in our midst…

    These people are a curse on society and a cancer in your business.

  227. Circling Sharks
    15 Apr 12
    7:31 am

  228. I think they mean apologise for being such a child.

    Throughout this childish display not once have you even attempted to take the high road and just stop. At any point you could have just responded with a simple, “I can understand where you are coming from, and I respect your opinion. However, I respectfully disagree.” Or something to that effect.

    Instead you have taken to forcing your own opinion as if it is the only possible interpretation to the ad in question.

    Don’t think I’m simply targeting you, pretty much all the major players in this shameful display are equally as guilty of this behaviour as you are.

    Now, kindly let this die if you have nothing of substance to contribute.

  229. Groucho
    15 Apr 12
    7:56 am

  230. JB, please please put it away, there’s a good chap.

  231. LW
    15 Apr 12
    5:58 pm

  232. Wow JB, you had quite the fun Saturday night didn’t you?

  233. Francis
    16 Apr 12
    5:43 am

  234. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister…

  235. Dave
    16 Apr 12
    10:41 am

  236. JB actually I have given you some pretty detailed reasons for why I believe that your complaint won’t be upheld.

    Your blatant disregard, however, for other people’s viewpoints should they not support your own view just makes it way too easy to surmise that the major problem here is not the complaint, but the complainant.

    Tim – any idea on when we will receive the ASB ruling on this so we can put this matter to rest?

  237. AndrewL
    16 Apr 12
    2:47 pm

  238. I’m willing to bet a case of beer that this ad will stay up, as long as it’s not Carlton

  239. AdGrunt
    16 Apr 12
    3:21 pm

  240. Are you lot still feeding the our little JB troll?

  241. Dave
    16 Apr 12
    4:06 pm

  242. yes we are AdGrunt. It’s soooo much fun!

  243. AndrewL
    16 Apr 12
    4:37 pm

  244. Not feeding the troll feeding my habit
    “For those who think the Complaint will not be upheld, declare yourselves to Robin or Tim at mUmBRELLA before the ASB Board considers the matter; I’ll buy each of you a case of Golden Ale if you’re right provided you each stake the cash equivalent. I am not expecting to be knocked over in the rush . . .”

  245. JB
    16 Apr 12
    4:53 pm

  246. I do not know if AndrewL or anyone else identified themselves to a mUmBRELLA editor, however, the declaration had to be made before the Board considered the matter, and it already had when Andrew declared his interest.

  247. AdGrunt
    16 Apr 12
    5:20 pm

  248. The ASB determination being?

  249. Allie
    17 Apr 12
    2:35 pm

  250. I agree with the complainant, that is exactly what the ad is implying and it does fly in the face of hygiene and disease control messages. Exceedingly stupid slogan, worst I’ve seen for a while.