NAB told: Carry on killing asterisks
NAB bank is allowed to depict violence to asterisks, the Advertising Standards Board has ruled.
In a campaign prior to NAB launching its The Break Up project, it created a series of ads featuring comedy asterisks being “killed”.
But one complaint about an animated version of the ad stated: “They make the asterisks into children – playing and giggling and then they kill them – this appears quite a violent action and distresses me as they seem lifelike.”
But NAB responded: “The creative idea uses asterisks to represent conditions placed on an everyday bank account, and the killing of them demonstrates the abolishment of fees. The ad is in an animated non life-like style, and bears no representation to real life people or to children, for that matter.”
The ASB ruled: “The Board noted the complainant’s concerns that the advertisement features asterisks which are made to look like children and are then killed.
“The Board considered that the noises the asterisks make are not coherent enough to determine whether they should be human, animal or fictitious. The Board considered that the asterisks do not look like children and are not intended to represent children but to represent the asterisk.”
(Note: The ad above is not the one complained about which does not appear to be available on NAB’s YouTube channel, but another one from the “we killed ther asterisk” campaign.)
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
In all seriousness who are the people that complain about this stuff to the ASB?
User ID not verified.
Like “I wonder”, I wonder… and increasingly the answer has to be “other banks and their agencies”.
To misappropriate a famous quote:
“The advertising game is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.”
User ID not verified.
It is ridiculous that one complaint to the ASB leads to action. Surely one complaint in a national campaign with high R&F would indicate to the board there is no problem and the person is a crank. The complainants should also be forced to provide their identities, that they can make crackpot complaints anonymously is a joke.
User ID not verified.
The fact that the ASB entertains these ridiculous complaints in the first place warrants a complaint. Consider it done.
User ID not verified.
@Tom, I think Hunter S was referring to the TV business…
User ID not verified.
Perhaps as in our law courts, the people bringing vexatious and time wasting complaints such as this, should be forced to pay the costs of the ASB and NAB when the complaints are thrown out.
Just a thought.
User ID not verified.
People do have the right to complain and we need to preserve that right.
But should a single individual’s voice be given such disproprtionate weight? Maybe the ASB should not need to investigate until there is (say) 25 or 50 written complaints.
User ID not verified.
I would agree with highlighting this and banning it. If you study things from a psychology perspective you see how important it is.
Equally the completely ridiculous Sneezesafe campaign labelled CATCH IT, BIN IT, KILL IT instructs children to commit murder multiple times during the Ad. Ludicrous, should be pulled instantly and never should have gone to air on television.
Again it seems trivial but if you understand the effect it can have, you would shudder at the thought of putting such imagery out there. What is wrong with CATCH IT, BIN IT, FINISH IT ?? 🙂
User ID not verified.
If anyone wants to note a ridiculous one-complaint ad-pull it’s the recent Qantas example whereupon the picture of two fans idolising their favourite rugby player was removed due to one complaint, despite the rugby player insisting it stay up. The removal of that Ad takes coloured people further away from complete inclusion, maintaining barriers to the actual acceptance and integration of ethnically diverse people together and creating us all as a singular in-group in Australia.
You can look at things layman whinger style devoid of in-depth thought or informed grounding, or you can see things from a behavioural perspective based on fact – sadly most opt for the latter due to the first being non-existent.
User ID not verified.
Oops that should be “opt for the former due to the latter being non-existent” … 🙂
User ID not verified.