Watchdog bans Sir Walter’s sausage, arguing it ‘endorses bullying and aggressive behaviour’
An ad for turf supplier Sir Walter Turf, which features a talking sausage, has been banned by the ad watchdog because of a ruling that the ad “depicts and endorses bullying and aggressive behaviour.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlpT9ZRmUyY
The Ad Standards Bureau ruling found that the scene where the man has grass pushed into his mouth and face, was a realistic depiction of an action that could be considered as a violent act.
Advertisers are banned in Australia from depicting violence, “unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.”
In the case of the Sir Walters Turf the complainant commented that the ad, which focuses on the experiences of man who is hosting a party only to find his guests abandon the event after finding his grass is not certified, showed acts of bullying.
“To sell a product this ad promotes and encourages physical bullying and peer pressure during a familiar social activity,” wrote the complainant.
“In a time when we are trying to stop bullying we allow this ‘bully’ to physically violate this man in such a derogatory way that all the guests leave the party, the host is left depressed, the bully glorified.”
Sir Walter’s Turf responded that the acts were intended to be comical.
“The action portrayed in TV commercial was not intended to depict violence or bullying in any way. Rather it was intended to portray a totally unrealistic but humorous scenario, through the actions and reactions that are grossly exaggerated and removed from reality, to reinforce a message about choosing the right turf product.”
The ASB ruling found: “The Board considered that exaggerated scenes of guests fleeing the party, the dead lawn and the talking sausage were humorous and unrealistic depictions…
“In the Board’s view the man’s actions were realistic and indicative of aggressive and bullying behaviour. The Board considered that as there is no consequence to the behaviour of both pushing the grass into the other man’s mouth and rubbing grass in his face, the behaviour appears to be condoned.
“The Board noted that bullying type behaviour is of strong community concern and considered that the issue is being trivialised in the advertisement.
“The Board considered that the advertisement did present violence that was not justifiable in the context of the product being advertised.”
Nic Christensen
Despite the undertones of bullying this poor excuse for an ad should have been taken off air for being so appalling. Honestly I ask the question if so called creatives are paying clients to make their ads?? – because surely no honourable agency would allow a client to pay for this. Maybe the client’s are making their own ads – if so STOP – or the Direct Departments of TV stations are making them – then I reiterate STOP IT.
Stop reading Advertising for Dummies books – it’s not helping your brand.
User ID not verified.
It could be the suits making the ads – I know at several very large and well known agencies, the creative department could not always meet the client deadlines or even be bothered doing work which didn’t interest them so the suits were forced to write ads.
I particularly remember one English writer lass telling the suits when they asked her to do a retail ad for a leading media organisation “fuck off, i didn’t come here to do retail”.
So yeh it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the suits or clients did more ads than realised.
User ID not verified.