Adshel was stupid pulling the gay sex posters. Not evil

There is no Morality Bank you can make withdrawals from every time you do something wrong. The act of donating to charity doesn’t make any other act one performs more or less morally good. This is why I don’t get to murder people in exchange for giving to the poor.

Now, the nature of the issue is that Adshel made the decision that their own self-interest should be served before that of a group of people who have been historically discriminated against, beaten and murdered because of their sexuality. They chose to go with those who would ensure those days continue. They chose to support those who would be oppressors rather stand up for the oppressed.

That is a moral choice not a pragmatic one.

I was never one of the tin foil hat brigade inferring that Adshel was a defacto branch of the KKK, descended from the Waffen SS or whatever, but likewise what they did was idiotic and they deserve the spray they’ve received for being pissweak bozos and reacting to a bunch of crazy grannies.

And while it does show the ‘power’ of SM to a degree, the MSM was all over this like glue today too, which helped.

“It’s decision to pull the ads wasn’t so much anti-gay; it was anti-controversy.”

If thirty or fourty people made a complaint about an ad that depicted a man and female hugging, then they would have likely ignored the complaints. If their anti-controversy mechanism only activates when it involves a gay couple, then yes, that is anti-gay.

Ya. Maybe need to add to the dealing with complaints flowchart : Is the complaint from right wing nutbag god botherers? > Yes? > Do Nothing.

I suspect this has helped their brand more than harm it. The message has already spread across social media that the posters are going back up.

It’s the ACL with the egg on its face, not adshel. I dare say it’s just give them a fortune in free marketing to increase their brand name recognition.

I was recently in New Zealand and I am not sure if it is the same company that owns the advert sites, but there was some hard-hitting stuff about on the NZ transport systems. I paraphrase. “Let’s breastfeed and respect women who are doing it” was one and “Downbeat dad? . . think about spending quality time with your kids for once”, was another. Interesting.

Sorry Tim, the poor defenceless animals vs those horrible gays balance doesn’t do it for me. (I know that’s not what you were saying, but you get my point).

That said, Adshel is more than one person. I’m assuming only a few were involved in the idiotic decision to pull the ads. The bigger issue is management’s response (that and sadly many members of society who blocked the talkback channels in support of ACL this afternoon).

As ‘And another thing’ said, if this was an ad for safe hetro sex there’d be no complaint from ACL or anyone else. And if there was, it would have been ignored. So let’s not hide the homophobia and bigotry shown and felt by some members of our community, and the fear that others fear because of it. The people at Adshel that made the call to begin are more than likely not homophobic, but merely fearful of the bad press a decision to offend the moronic minority. Glad to see that backfired to the extent it did.

Adshel should come out and say ‘someone made a terrible mistake, one we wholeheartedly reject, we’ll be reinstating the ads, and also doing a hell of a lot more for safe sex awareness in the gay (and indeed straight) community. More importantly we’ll be instigating education and company policies so that all staff are fully aware of our position and this won’t happen again.

Of course that won’t happen, because PR101 (assuming they actually now take that course) will probably be ‘stop talking, shut up and let ACL take the heat).

As a positive, I’m glad thee things have happened. Firstly this got the massive amount of Australia-wide press it did. Secondly it might have got the message out to a lot more of the intended target market. Finally it might be one more nail on the coffin of bigoted groups such as ACL who hide behind the cloak of religion.

What I think is interesting here and something to take as a positive from this whole debacle, is that historically a group like the ACL would complain and ads like these would come down and stay down!! This time, enough of community disagreed with the decision for the ads to be reinstated.! A step in the right direction I say!

Ben you’re right – there’s a goods news story to all of this and that is this otherwise small, Brisbane based campaign has now been seen all across Australia, talked about and thought about – exactly what the ACL didn’t want. A definite slap in the face for them.

And Tim, appreciate your defence of Adshel but life doesn’t work that way.

What everyone seems to be missing is that every type of media is compelled to act upon complaints. Either legally or by some form of self-governance.

Whatever the compliant be, even it is a single letter from a 7 year old, needs to be responded to. Officially. Generally with legal advice.

If an ad is generating a lot of complaints, the media company, as with any type of company, will always act with caution, and so it should. This is what AdShel did and it’s what every media company does day in and day out…

This whole humdrum has been centered on the messengers, not the root cause of the problem; which is ingrained homophobia within the ACL.

With the action and hatred centred upon AdShel, I’m afraid this is not a battle won.

In reality, the only winners in the whole game have actually been the ACL and as such they’ve succeed it what they set out to do.

PM I don’t believe they set out to shoot themselves in the foot?

Well done to Adshel I say. They received what was apparently a significant amount of independent challenges that resulted in them needing to take action. When it became apparent these were singularly orchestrated, they reversed the decision.

On another note, I am glad to see what appears to be a decent piece of street furniture creative. Many campaigns using this medium use creative that is bloody awful.

AdShel should sack its PR agency if it was acting on the agency’s advice.

Yes Adshel stuffed up. But they should have checks in place to stop this sort of thing.

I think This is where the practice of self regualting and governing falls over. There should have been someone within the company to make a pretty decent judgement call on this. And if they couldnt make a decision then they could have spoken to a 3rd party (though surely numbers say that Adshel has to have a gay there somehwere!) Clearly the person making their decision to pull this was way out of their depth.

Anyone with an ounce of common sence would have look at the copy and seen that it was not sexually offensive. But Adshel spooked on the horsetrail in front of the venomless snake that is ACL.

I also dont see the ACL campaigning to have the current condon TVC airing ont he netowkrs taken off. Isnt that promoting 3sums and sexual activity out of marriage… oh but wait…. its got straight people in it so its not as evil then.

I don’t agree, what Adshel did was wrong. The other historical campaigns are brand positioning and self promotion. They don’t excuse homophobia.

What we don’t get to see is the self regulation that Adshel does in the work it doesn’t take on. Has anyone ever been unable to execute a campaign with Adshel? Do they have a public advertising policy, so consumers know where the boundaries are?

Google Adwords has public policies and procedures: http://adwords.google.com/supp.....&rd=1.

Very few other companies have such guidelines. Fitness First’s company outline actually should be “We started with just one gym and the simple philosophy of providing affordable fitness, by subsiding overheads with advertising contracts from cosmetic surgeons because being fit and health isn’t enough.” Yep, liposuction in the gym. Plus their music strategy is to show tits and arse videos clips as often as possible. Girls bent over doggy style and oiled up get extra points. I’ve talked to Fitness First about it and their Media group http://www.activemediagroup.com.au/. They seem unwilling to investigate their sexist practices that degrade women.

Back to the Adshell campaign …

I’m interested that Wendy Francis has been on radio and TV today saying she would feel the same even if the campaign were depicting a hetero couple.
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise.....ntroversy/
http://sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.c.....08937.html

See the original complaints here:
http://www.qahc.org.au/files/s.....laints.pdf

There are only a couple of complaints that don’t explicitly mention homosexuality. I would be interested to know which one was submitted by Wendy Francis. Presumably she is responsible for drafting the actual complaint letter that is used in the majority of the other people. If QAHC released the uncensored version with names (or found the original correspondance where she called people to action), then she really could be held accountable to the BS she is spouting to defend herself.

There is so much about ACLs and Adshell’s original actions actions that really upsets and angers me. Especially that “The only place this message should be seen would be seen to practising homosexuals, not to impressionable youth in our public spaces.” Oh right ACL, practising homosexuals hang out in gay ghettos right? F you!

Thank you to the QAHC for addressing all the issues raised
http://www.qahc.org.au/files/s.....sponse.pdf

Thank you to everyone who stood up and fought! Good on JCDecaux for extending the coverage.

Don’t let Adshel get away with it. Hold them accountable. Loving relationships of all kinds should be celebrated, not shunned.

You have all missed the point by a long shot.

This isn’t about pro or anti gay, whether the message is a good one or not and shouldn’t be simply another chance to vent poison towards ACL/God/Christians in general.

Read the complaints. It is about whether this type of explicit advertisement (and there are many) should be at a public bus stop where young, innocent children will see it.

The real issue is our obligation to protect young children from images and concepts which it is unnecessary for them to see until they’re old enough to understand them in context.

Tragically, this basic Societal responsibility has been hijacked by the vocal minority who always have so much to say, so loudly, so publicly, while those without a voice are the true victims. Pathetic.

I was so annoyed at the whole situation I generated a video highlighting the ignorance of some of the complaints and messages posted about the campaign – Hopefully it can be turned into something positive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl4x1li91S0

Here below pasted what I found the fairest comment. thanks, Chris

MattP
3 Jun 11
2:33 pm
You have all missed the point by a long shot.

This isn’t about pro or anti gay, whether the message is a good one or not and shouldn’t be simply another chance to vent poison towards ACL/God/Christians in general.

Read the complaints. It is about whether this type of explicit advertisement (and there are many) should be at a public bus stop where young, innocent children will see it.

The real issue is our obligation to protect young children from images and concepts which it is unnecessary for them to see until they’re old enough to understand them in context.

Tragically, this basic Societal responsibility has been hijacked by the vocal minority who always have so much to say, so loudly, so publicly, while those without a voice are the true victims. Pathetic.

Explicit? Two blokes hugging is explicit? Riiiiight.

Did the ACL complain about this one: https://mumbrella.com.au/supre-ad-banned-for-sexualising-tweens-48514 ?

I’m with you Ben, what is explicit about two blokes hugging?