YouTube troll hijacks ANZ new Apple Pay ad to make lead actor look like jihadi terrorist

Odd that in the original add the graphics on the milk look tracked on in post.
Not sure if giving publicity to this is wise. It’s only really news because you’ve posted it. There’s a million racist memes and parodies out there that aren’t reported. Why this one?

Because doing nothing implies indifference and indifference implies consent.

Only 915 views… How did mumbrella find out about it? Not insinuating anything about the origin it just feels like this is only a story because you’ve now made it one.

I have to agree with the comments above – why is this news? If someone wrote something offensive on a billboard, would that get covered? If this now suddenly starts ratcheting up the views one has to wonder whether it would have done without getting covered.

If so, it would be particularly ironic coming from the site that made a very good case for the fact that the mainstream press needed to stop reporting every single bomb scare as it ends up doing the terrorists job for them. http://mumbrella.com.au/after-.....are-339913

Hi Ciaran,

Thanks for the comment. To answer, it’s newsworthy because the brand has done what many critics of the Aussie ad industry say doesn’t happen often enough and used a non-white actor as the star for its commercial, and one which is noteworthy, only for this to be the immediate reaction of some of the community.

When searching for the ANZ ad this version appeared high in the search list, suggesting it was already getting traction online with or without us publishing it.

Cheers,

Alex – editor, Mumbrella

@Alex – Sure but by making racism news you’re amplifying it and giving fuel to idea that it’s safer to just use white actors. If I went and stood out the front of ANZ and yelled racist things out would you report on it? You are unintentionally spreading hate. You make choice daily not to report racist rubbish published on Facebook and twitter. Why is youtube any different?

Hi Billy,

You’re right, there are hundreds of things that go by every day which aren’t talked about, and by ignoring it is it helping to solve the problem? Does it help others plan their response strategy if such a thing happens to them when they are making ads using non-white actors?

We’re not a general news site, we’re here for the media and marketing communities talking about the issues that affect them and this comment section is one area of that discussion.

It’s obviously very sad some individual has chosen to hijack this ad in this way – my question now is what is the response from ANZ which owns the copyright over most of the material and in turn Youtube in terms of dealing with this kind of thing?

They’ve been approached for comment, we’re awaiting their response.

Cheers,

Alex – editor, Mumbrella

As a fellow Australian of Asian descent this disappoints me. ANZ happen to use someone of a non-Caucasian background (very common practice generally) and some idiot has show his feelings behind some YouTube account. I know there’s freedom of speech and all that stuff, but there’s a difference between expression and just being a dick. In this case – the creator is the latter.

I happen to know the bloke in the ad as well – and he’s a deadset champion.

its such a bad commercial before it’s hacked..

@Alex. I respectfully disagree. If I posted something racist you wouldn’t approve it but yet you’ve embedded it yourself. You could have reported it with a description.

Billy, I think that’s a disingenuous analogy for a lot of reasons, but I respect your stance.

Cheers,

Alex – editor, Mumbrella

Is the motive behind the ‘troll’ video pointing out that in the ‘real’ video it depicts an Asian man as an alien? (Everyone in the original ad is white, apart from him and they get really scared of him when he pulls out his…….phone.)

Could the ‘troll video’ actually be pointing out the bias in the original video, which to some, could imply that they are playing on exactly what the ‘troll’ video is pointing out?

To finish I will ask a question: Is the ‘troll’ video spelling out the bias in the original?

Having watched the original, I’m inclined to agree with you.

Would they have gone down the “suspense” path and used an Anglo actor instead?

We had family over from Europe, who have experienced the issues being discussed in the media first hand. They watched the original commercial and said they straight away thought the guy was a terrorist and was going to blow up the shop. We are probably more immune to this in Australia, but still I thought the original commercial was bad taste when I watched it. I’d say the original is definitely making reference to the subject of jihad. Just looking at the faces of actors when the guy pulls out the phone – the trio who just walked into the shop start running out, the dog takes cover, other shoppers back away… Using the only Middle Eastern actor with all others in the commercial being white. It’s not even hinting, it’s saying it out loud. Very-very bad taste to allow such commercial to be made, let along go on air.

And now ANZ have pulled the parody from youtube for copyright infringement……. Lame

Perhaps the creative agency can explain their reasoning behind the idea and the casting..

@comments 12 and 13th

It wasn’t just me then. I truly believe that ANZ’s own advert is very biased. It wouldn’t surprise me if the creative’s are simply immune to this sort of thing.

IAT tests from Harvard are free. Anyone responsible for campaign execution should sit one and become far more conscious.

A comment on the original add. The use of a non-Caucasian is not the issue. The original ad is so offensive because it stereotypes the race of the actor (purchaser) as a Muslim terrorist. Islam is not a race, people. Race is not the issue. culture (the way we do things here) is the issue. Don’t judge by the way people look (race), learn to distinguish the signals they give about what they believe and will therefore act. (culture)