Channel Nine bans ‘offensive’ Greenpeace ad
The Nine Network has declined to screen a confronting television commercial from environmental group Greenpeace, which targets Coca Cola, on the grounds it is ‘offensive’ to viewers.
The ad ‘Stop Coca-Cola trashing Australia’ shows people enjoying bottles of Coca Cola by the beach before seeing hundreds of sea birds literally dropping from the sky. The ad then focuses in on the birds and shows that they have consumed a large amount of plastics.
Greenpeace said Nine had originally agreed to run the ad after the group raised $20,000 for it to be screened during the Friday night football. The station accepted the booking payment before later changing its mind after viewing the ad.
It wasn’t ‘offensive’, however I bet a host of other Channel 9 advertisers are strong supporters of soft drink manufacturers – McDonald’s, KFC, Coles, Woolies, Mount Franklin (owned by Coke), pizza delivery outlets etc. And Nine was happy to take the hit to save the majority (because it’s not like Nine’s in the position to be knocking back ads…)
EXACTLY what Greenpeace would have wanted – well done Nine for launching another social media campaign.
Not quite sure why this is offensive. This is what a Melbourne beach looked like recently.http://www.igloo.com.au/blog/a-day-on-the-beach/ Looks like a scene out of the ad.
It would appear that CCA has Channel 9 on the backfoot at the very least, on the ropes at the very worst.
It’s not offensive to viewers at all. If anything it defames Coca Cola/Amatil; so if Amatil want to take Greenpeace to court, why don’t they? Because of the percieved PR nightmare.
Greenpeace have paid the money so the ad should run. Naturally Channel 9 doesn’t want to offend one of their major advertisers and that is the reason it’s not running.
That said, if Greenpeace really want to get their message across, it may be easier for them to not single out Coke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i43km8XTqQ
The owners have spoken.
Theres something seriously wrong when Nine are happy to show back to back ads for gambling but are too afraid to air an ad for recycling
How can channel 9 deem the ad offensive to viewers when no one has seen it yet? Don’t they usually take the money, run the ad and then remove if they get too many complaints? Coke must have something to do with it! I have to say I’d much rather watch dead birds falling from the sky that have to sit through the dribble that comes out of Tom Waterhouse.
Most ad’s on the Nine Network are antisocial: Fast food, gambling, alcohol, sugary drinks, polluters, obesity generators etc
Perhaps SBS will run with the ad, although I did recently see that SBS are running with the Tom Waterhouse ad’s – how ghastly.
I wonder if there was a study (Mumbrella, perhaps you could conduct one?) about the ethical footprint of Nine execs v other media stables.
Who would have the least damaging ethical media footprint in Australia?
How many sea birds are actually killed by coke? I’d suggest much less than the 60billion terrestrial and trillion aquatic animals intentionally killed every year by animal agriculture.
Coke is not necessary for human survival. Neither is any animal product. But coke, like so many other things like live export, etc. is a convenient diversion from humankind’s unspeakable violence.
Ditch coke AFTER you stop INTENTIONALLY killing our vulnerable earthlings.
If channel nine truely thinks it is offensive, they should have sort opinion from ACMA.
Looks like they are just looking after the relationship between CCA and themselves.
Er….Is 9 protecting it’s relationship with CCA?
The resounding answer to that one is “NO SHIT SHERLOCK”. But that’s their right. There is no body in Australia who can force a commercial media company to accept advertising they don’t want to run.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace now have all the free publicity this move has generated and will get much more attention and Youtube views as a result. More than likely, this is what they hoped for.
Win/Win. Honestly, some of you need some caffeine or something…maybe a Coke?
Brave and perhaps foolish to attack Coca Cola, but the message is a strong one regarding the death of wildlife.
The shooting was not brilliant in my opinion, but the ad was nicely produced, I hope it does have success on Youtube, I certainly don’t imagine that nine or any other channel would risk crossing CCA.
Brave and perhaps foolish to attack Coca Cola, but the message is a strong one regarding the death of wildlife.
The shooting was not brilliant in my opinion, but the ad was nicely produced, I hope it does have success on Youtube, I certainly don’t imagine that nine or any other channel would risk crossing CCA.
I can’t help thinking that the wording is dangerous “Coke is fighting legislation that will solve the problem” I think “may” or “is designed to” would be a better choice of words.
So this TVC is about hipsters on beaches littering?
No doubt that this is a legitimate issue but I would have thought that approaching the matter in a broad sense rather than singling out one dominant brand would have been a more responsible approach. Admittedly, that approach would probably not generate the potential the ‘extra’ media coverage that a shock and awe stab at one of the big guys is likely too, but then perhaps if the communication itself were strong they wouldn’t have to rely on such tactics. Secondly, I think Greenpeace needs to be careful that viewers don’t perceive their approach as too aggressive. Even the slightest hint of aggression can easily be perceived as ‘bullying’ and Greenpeace’s tactics haven’t always endeared them to the broader population. If they are seeking to create awareness and garner support I’m not convinced that this is the best approach. However, if they want to make some noise and get some free PR miles then they’ve probably kicked a goal or maybe a behind.
Coke suck. Let’s face it. Another huge multi-national brand that makes gazillions selling obesity and yet can’t find it in their hearts to do something for the environment. They fought the NT government to overturn its cash for containers program which would have kept millions of bottles from ending up in our waterways and beaches. Why? Cos it would damage their bottom line. It’s another disgusting case of greed at its finest. I hate brands that talk up how much happiness they bring to people’s lives when all they do is line their pockets and give nothing back to the people who buy their product. You’re never getting another cent out of me you bunch of coke-heads.
Money talks and sea birds can only squawk
Apparently Greenpeace doesn’t understand that the Nine Network is a private entity, and can choose what it does, or does not put to air on its privately leased frequency.
It is accountable to no-one but its shareholders. If it offends the community, shareholder value will drop and it will have to respond accordingly to stay in business.
It’s called private enterprise – the mortal enemy of Greenpeace socialism.
Greenpeace is imagining a world in which everything is owned by the government, and everyone meekly complies with Greenpeace dogma.
Not in this lifetime, luvvies!
Channel 9 should run the ad, what the hell is offensive about it? I suspect ony Channel 9’s relationship (if any) with CCA or any of the other resellers of CCA Products.
Shame on Channel 9..Discrimination and likely pressure from Coke stopping a legitimate and non slanderous ad.
When I was a kid we all paid 2 pence deposit on bottles and took them back,
It is legal in South Australia.. Why is Coke opposing it.
You wouldn’t see a bottle lying around anywhere as adults and kids would make theit pocket money picking them up.you know Coke were thieves when I used to sell Coke at the speedway.
Charge 2P deposit , but because we were selling when we picked up the emties and took back they only gave us a halfpneve for them
The only thing offensive about this ad is that Nine chose not to air it.
And Mike, any doubt that you are a loonie has been scotched.
@Ricki: you make it sound like public media being commercially controlled is a good or noble thing.
Oh, most likely you are being fed yeh.
NINE is a commercial television network. Not a public broadcaster.
Everyone who has got on their high horse about them not broadcasting it has just got sucked into the Greenpeace PR machine.
Who’s the fool?
wow Terry, you got us there
“NINE is a commercial television network. Not a public broadcaster.”
How extraordinarily intelligent an observation, seriously thank you.