Ultra Tune’s latest ad, starring Pamela Anderson, is the epitome of misguided marketing
Ultra Tune’s latest campaign is bad creative, and bad for women, argues Anne Miles. But it’s also a reflection on the agencies involved, Ad Standards, and Free TV – and they need to be more accountable.
The latest Ultra Tune campaign – featuring the boobs of Pamela Anderson bedazzling Warwick Capper into a sexual trance, unable to control himself – is the epitome of misguided marketing. But worst of all, it is indicative of our broken approval system. This campaign is so far off current consumer needs and is doing more harm to our damaged society – but we can all learn some valuable lessons and start making change for good.
Firstly, this is no feminist rant by any means. This is a business performance problem as much as it is a social issue. This is no harmless little comedy piece. It is a deep-rooted problem for the safety of our women, for women’s ability to be taken seriously in leadership positions, for our understanding of the real customer. It is also setting back men too, through stereotypes.
This ad should never have been approved by our industry approval bodies. Where were they? How could this slip through?
several thousand unnecessary words Anne.
it’s light hearted fun to build brand awareness. it’s up to the advertiser to decide if there is a fiscal benefit to running the campaign. it isn’t the advertiser’s role to promote societal or industry good.
I couldn’t disagree more, fleshpeddler. Anybody that puts stuff out into the world has a responsibility for how that stuff affects the world. It’s that simple.
I actually found Anne’s write up excellent!
Gender aside the Ultra Tune TVC isn’t light hearted and fun – Its terrible! Terrible foresight of their future and current customer base. I don’t even think the bogans of this world will find this clever and appealing! Terrible work Ultra Tune – You need to reposition your brand big time!
Yeah keep hiding behind “Oh but it’s not my role”.
Having been through sexual abuse and domestic violence, that’s exactly the kind of thing perpetrators often say actually…. “I was only having fun’, or ‘everyone does it’, or ‘you are so sensitive’. Good thing you were not brave enough to put a name to that or you would embarrass yourself incredibly with that thinking.
Advertisers absolutely have a responsibility because of the impact and privilege we all have as part of this exposure to the world. There is enough data now that shows media impacts society’s behaviour. You probably formed that opinion of yours through media that was harmful actually.
It is ignorance that allows people to think it is harmless and not a brand’s responsibility.
It’s not so much about advertisers promoting societal good, but about avoiding societal harm. It’s a no-brainer we should stop making work that damages our own communities.
Couldn’t disagree with you more “fleshpeddler”. Let’s hope you are an ultra tune customer, because you might be the only one left after this. This (now former) customer, who also happens to be a woman and the primary decision maker for our family matters, thinks this ad is garbage. It is outdated, uninteresting, and just bad advertising.
I disagree with Fleshpeddler – It’s always fun until someone gets hurt right? Anyone remember advertisers promoting how healthy smoking was, look what happened there. Its time for change, and that time is now.
Usually the UltraTune CEO is quite vocal in the comment response thread.
It would be interesting to see how he responds to this balanced view as oppose to the hysterical, god-induced screeching of his other well known detractors.
It’s a crap ad, to be sure. Also the dude at the end is their marketing director. Casting himself (once again) is the real crime here…
Couldnt agree more Alex – if they can afford Pam then they can afford a realistic lifeguard. Sorry Rod, worth you staying behind the other side of the camera….
Cue the UltraTune marketing person writing a long reply about how the world is too politically correct and customers love TVCs with boobies and gender stereotypes.
Well said Anne. Sadly my own experience calling out this appalling advertising is that most blokes think it’s hilarious fun and most women share our point of view. There’s something fundamentally wrong right there isn’t there?
Thanks for saying @TheDarkAges
The fact that UltraTune can get this work on air at all is the problem. We’ll always have people trying to push the envelope so clearly our system isn’t working. I’m on it!
So you are advocating for media and advertising to stop pushing the envelope.
If you don’t have the right statistics you shouldn’t use biased misleading statistics to prove your point.
An easy way to gain the right information is to ask Ultra Tune who is there target market and maybe do some research rather than finding the first positive google search answer.
To me this is a story about Pamela and Warrick and not about gender and sex. They have both relied on their sex appeal in their careers. Warrick was objectified in his younger days by women and used his sexuality to his benefit and Pamela was able to do so for many more years than Warrick even though he still tries.
People who would recognise Warrick and Pamela are 30+ years old and if your younger than this the advertising looks like two old people recognising each other on the beach.
To play out your theory for a younger audience, why does the ‘old man’ raise his eyebrows at the older woman in a long sleeve swimsuit over the scantilty clad younger woman already in his car.
People are agreeing that the ads are trashy and I would believe that this is the intention. Ultra Tune have a track record with ads being banned and they keep doing it. Another comment mentioned that it was happening in female dominated viewing times. I would say they are getting the reaction they want.
I do agree with some commentators that the casting of the lifeguard was poor. I would have got a hunky male lifeguard to even the keel but maybe on a deeper level when Warrick shrugs in agreement to mouth to mouth with him he is saying that I am not as sexist as you think he is if he would pick this gaunt older man over a gorgeous female celebrity even when there are younger and more sexualised lifeguard women seen in the ad.
Noticed this would come on during women’s games at the Australian Open, and recall similar happening last year.
That makes me suspect the strategy has an element of trolling to it.
“we aren’t going to die if we don’t have sex”
Perhaps the author was a result of an immaculate conception (and judging by the morality she aims to impart on the rest of us, perhaps she too believes this), but having no sex absolutely will kill us (where ‘us’ is the species, not the individual).
Had she taken more than 5 seconds to think about this statement perhaps she would have seen this, as opposed to the overtly puritanical viewpoint provided.
“This is the same phenomenon the gaming industry experienced, when most of games were targeted to men. The product, packaging and advertising were ‘masculine’, and marketers believed this was their target audience.”
This is such a great point. The cognitive bias in thinking you’re giving the market what it wants here is tremendous.
Geez you’re drawing a long bow suggesting that showing beach babes is a contributing causal link with violence towards women. Particularly when (in this rather tacky piece of comms) they are held up as heroes.
And then you say sex drive isn’t actually a drive at all. “A drive is a motivational system to deal with life-and-death issues like hunger or being too cold; we aren’t going to die if we don’t have sex.”
Um…yes.. the human race is going to die if we don’t have sex. It’s pretty much right up there in terms of drives. The urge to procreate is overwhelmingly fundamental. What you’ve put forward is simply utter nonsense.
I’ve got no issue with you saying this ad is tacky rubbish, but distorting facts and using mistruths to support a broader case isn’t going to help your argument.
Unless of course you are suggesting we can’t use beauty and sex appeal in advertising any more?
The work is appalling on so many levels; strategy, talent and category relevance – even production is very 1980’s and back to the future. There is zero customer empathy, but (and a big but).. this is the decision of a CEO of his own business who is calling the shots. I do however pity the many mum and dad franchisee’s who no doubt have their marketing levy funding this appalling work and would not agree with how their own business investment is marketed.
Couple of errors with the article Anne.
First Error: “with 65% involved in new car purchases and even more if you add in used cars”. Ultra tune don’t sell cars, either new or used. They are servicing, retail, roadside repairs.
Second: The violence against women in the world is horrific, but in no way related to a 30 second ad for ultra tune.
Third: The marketing for gaming system has recently been gender neutral. Pull up any playstation ad, or XBOX, etc and there’s no gender featured in the adds. Certainly the WII is a bad example, it peaked for a couple of years, now its no more. Whilst PS4, XBOX are going strong. Nintendo no so much.
P.S I find the add trashy, but that’s no reason to ban it.
Thanks for saying @TheDarkAges
The fact that UltraTune can get this work on air at all is the problem. We’ll always have people trying to push the envelope so clearly our system isn’t working. I’m on it!
That’s no error actually @Sam
Automotive sector purchases are across the board. Feel free to share any further data you can find that shows that men still purchase service and parts. There isn’t any as far as I can tell. Always open to data that proves a point.
There is more on the link between sexualisation in media and the results of abuse. @Mumbrella left all the sources of the data off which I always attribute when I write. Feel free to explore this more yourself. A more detailed response with data sources is here:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ultratune-last-straw-our-content-approval-systems-anne-miles-cpm-/
Anne,
There is an error(S) in your article. Ultra Tune has never sold a car, used, new or any sale whatsoever. Ever. So the mention of women being responsible for 65 percent of car purchases is simply not relevant. End of story.
There is data available regarding gender decision making in the selection of servicing, road side repairs and retail of parts. If you can’t find it, then investigative journalism is perhaps lacking here?
The Ultra Tune ad is trashy (only from my perspective), but just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it should be taken off air. Nor does it mean it’s not effective. Lots of business are failing these days. Ultra Tune seems to be doing well. (Good for them btw).
P.S Past successes are always looked upon.
So are you saying that advertising and the media should not try to push the envelope. Also the statistics in this article do not link at all to what you are saying. A large percentage of women are buying cars yes but are they the ones servicing and replacing parts on their cars. Two very different target markets and clearly seen in the difference between car ads and car part ads. Past ultra tune ads have used known celebrities in their ads but this add is clearly about the personalities in this ad. Warrick and Pamela are both known for their sex appeal and are probably unknown to the younger female car buying market. Maybe ultra tune understand their target market and have created a winning ad for their customers. Have you found out what the target market or regular customer to ultra tune is versus what you think it is. I do agree that the lifeguard casting was poor and I would have made this a hunky man lifeguard to even the keel.
In lack of an actual statistic let’s use a biased irrelevant stat to help prove a point. Terrible that these articles can be posted with out a governing body to review them before they are released.
‘Nintendo not so much’. Umm what? The Switch came out 4 years after the Xbox One and has already sold more units.
Yes, Nintendo not so much.
The follow up Nintendo model sold around 15 million units. The PS4 and XBOX One, both released under a year later, sold 115 and almost 50 million units respectively.
Switch wise the PS4 has sold over twice the number of models. XBOX One has also outsold the Switch. (Microsoft, like Apple, is a bit cagey sometimes with breaking down sales units). But the Switch does seem to be behind all the current consoles.
The original Nintendo, released back in the 80s, when the population was a half of what it is now, sold three times as many units as the Wii’s follow up model. It’s glory does are gone.
Yes the follow up Wii U was terrible. I’m not sure what sales data you’re looking at but the Switch has outsold the Xbox One already. The PS4 has been out for three and a half years longer than the Switch, the Switch is tracking at the same level as PS4 over the same starting timeframe.
Looking at accurate (and independent) sales data there Ben. Sorry, not sure what you are looking at. Sorry.
You also do know Nintendo sales tend to peak very quickly when it’s first released, but fail to sustain those sales in the subsequent years?! Whereas PS1 to PS4 and the various XBOX’s over the year’s sustain year on year sales?
If the Switch ever gets to 120 million sales call me. Otherwise it’s still last out of all the current console sales.
Bad example in the original article, and bit of a fanboy post from yourself?!
I couldn’t agree more. As a woman who can’t walk down the street without men yelling what they deem to be ‘compliments’ at me, and people still saying ‘lighten up’ when I am offended by advances in the workplace, I feel every brand has an obligation to start to change the narrative and shift the misogynistic undercurrent (or overt display in this example). Social responsibility should be considered by all parties involved and the approach in this TVC is just SO outdated.
Disagree with the comment above. That’s basically absolving every company for any responsibility for the products and services they produce, or the ads they produce.
We should demand that companies not only aim to profit and give a return to their owners, but also that they do so responsibly and ethically. Today’s consumer is increasingly taking this into account when purchasing, too – so it will quickly become a financial decision.
What is the purpose of advertising? Sell more stuff.
Now if the advertising is such, that it generates exposure over and above the paid media, it is likely to be more effective.
Ultra Tune are a successful business and it is clear that this type of advertising contributes to the success of a business. They have been running these types of campaigns for years, so hardly a rookie mistake Anne.
Furthermore it’s people like you Anne and your anti-everything attitude that is ruining advertising in this country.
All the best.
If you actually know me and hear me speak I am mostly commended for being fair, egalitarian and proactive at making things better. I am actually anti-activism in fact.
I am definitely agreeing that brands should be able to promote their products and to sell more. If you look into Conscious Capitalism you will see that this is all about improving business performance but also in my case about preventing those parts of our industry that is doing harm to society. Like it or not there is evidence that this is the case so it is undisputed and not a personal rant as you suggest. We’re just not doing enough at the pace the consumer wants us to. It is an outdated approach to think it is all about selling, at any cost. If you want the evidence to this check out the Edelman Trust Barameter. I didn’t make this all up.
I think that you will find that I’m on a mission to retain our industry and put some value back in it, not destroy it. Frankly to think that one person, like me, could destroy the entire industry is giving me too much importance. If you think that my support for doing better as an industry, saving the best talent who work in it to stay in it, getting more respect from the customer and protecting the brands that actually do the right thing is ‘ruining the industry’ – then yes, I am on a mission to ruin YOUR idea of the advertising industry and with gusto and passion. Believe me, the consumer wants this too so feel free to stay where you are.
Light hearted fun, well doesn’t that excuse everything?
I’m a bit sad that Anne felt she had to qualify that this wasn’t a feminist rant, I love a good femo rant.
Love and light!
Feminism does part of the job and that’s great. I’m much more egalitarian. This ad is a terrible indictment on men as well as women actually.
Can I please second the other comment “It isn’t the advertiser’s role to promote societal or industry good.” Ad campaigns do not need to be righteous, noble, or change the world. That so many agencies think they wield this power on behalf of their clients, is an example of the inflated egos present in this industry. Ads are designed to sell a product or service, to persuade, and to influence buying decisions. That is all they have ever done, and all they will ever do. Advertisers that attempt to align themselves or their products with some abstract, wholesome, greater good, simply compromise their core message, and reduce their campaign’s effectiveness in the process. Your point about the indentity of an UltraTune buyer is a fair one, for sure this company is barking up the wrong tree – in this case that is their mistake to make. However, the idea that all of society’s interpersonal issues are somehow the result of ridiculous ads like this one, and it should be censored? That is just an insult to the viewers intelligence.
In the ad I see a fair amount of ridicule targeted at the male (bumbling, foolish) rather than an outrageous example of a conspiracy against women by ultra tune.
The data used in this to link media to violence is also highly questionable since much of it refers to violence against girls in Nigeria, Yemen, Congo.
And even tho women influence auto buying decisions it is not the same as parts.
Well first up it’s a crap ad no doubt about it.
But wow. I really don’t read anywhere near the danger that you speak of within it. This article is overwrought with misguided emotion. Pick the real fights against chauvinism and misogyny Ann, because I don’t truly believe this ad is it.
Also, not once do you mention Pamela Anderson’s choice to appear in this ad? I believe she’s a strong outspoken woman on many issues. What’s her standing on this? Or does it not matter, because she’s fallen into your subconscious bimbo net of irrelevance?
Well it’s a crap ad there’s no doubt about it.
But Wow. I really don’t see the inherent danger to society you speak of. This article is overwrought with misguided emotion. There are real fights to be taken to chauvinism and misogyny, but this ad ain’t it.
Also, not once do you mention Pamela Anderson’s role in this ad and her choice to be in it. She’s a strong outspoken woman on many issues. So what’s her standing on this? Or does it not matter, because she fallen into your unconscious net of bimbo stereotypes and therefore irrelevant?…
Let’s all agree that it’s a terrible piece of sexist creative.
But now let’s talk about what an ad actually needs to do in order to succeed?
It needs to noticeable – the use of celebrities does this, however, the risk is the celebrities become bigger than the message
It needs to likeable – it’s clearly extremely polarising which means there is a probably a group of people who love it (with some hating it)
It needs to demonstrate brand linkage – it’s light on this but all of the Ultra Tune TVC has a similar look and feel
Message take out – The avoid unexpected situations is dramatized through the big idea
So yes it’s quite embarrassing but it’s not a complete failure in terms of what it needs to deliver as an ad
I am female over 50 and not a wowser by any means. Annes opinion has significant voice of concern over such ads that Ultra tune continue to use, that I believe are demeaning to women. They are cringe worthy and have repeatedly been one of the most complained ads for such reasons. I have used ultra tune to service my car on several occasions. The service from the mostly male employees has always been top rate. Wish they would concentrate on that and not think that bimbo woman ads are the way to go. Maybe they have bimbo male executives calling the shots?
This ad can be described in 2 words “Cheap / Ignorant” from both client and agency side!
On a creative level and not a PC level, it is just a tacky, cheap cringe- worthy ad. Embarrassing really.
Despite the ad being absolute rubbish (and I don’t necessarily disagree with some of the statements in the article), the fact is the market determines if a company is successful or not based on their image and reputation.
If a TV ad was contributing to the claims in the article, consumers have a role to play and it should not solely rely on advertisers.
Advertisers are paid to deliver results to clients and clearly this style of commercial (despite it being rubbish in my opinion) seems to be working for them as they have not changed the strategy for a number of years.
If the broader public felt the same way, there would be boycott of the brand and the business would suffer therefore leading to the company changing its marketing tact. Instead year after year we see the same style of ad from them.
Looks like Mumbrella let the fun police out again.
Lady in a bikini = Total Outrage
Man in a bikini = Celebrate Diversity & Bravery
Am I not to be included in your brand of inclusion? How exclusive.
Let’s stick to the facts in discussing this important issue Anne Miles is highlighting for our industry to grow and develop the necessary skills to meet the future needs of clients.
“This issues paper found that the continued use of gender stereotypes and increasing reliance on images that sexualise and objectify women in advertisements undermines efforts to promote gender equality in Australia. Gender-stereotyped portrayals limit the aspirations, expectations, interests and participation of women and men in our society. These portrayals are associated with a range of negative health and wellbeing outcomes and are highly problematic for the prevention of family violence and other forms of violence against women. ”
The studies cited in this paper demonstrate that there is a clear business case for change. Brands, businesses and creative agencies can benefit from portraying both women and men proportionately, respectfully and realistically.
https://whv.org.au/resources/whv-publications/advertising-inequality-impacts-sexist-advertising-women%E2%80%99s-health-and
Thank you for sharing the literature review on this topic Bec. I think this should be compulsory reading for marketers and agency staff alike based on some of the uninformed comments here on impact of gender stereotypes in advertising. Perhaps Mark Green at The Communications Council and John Broome at the AANA could make this happen. Also thank you Anne for raising this issue. While the advertiser is ultimately responsible for meeting the standards regulated by the ASB, I think that all parties involved should be held to account. It is not enough for professional communicators to say ‘they were just doing what the client wanted’ when they know what they are doing is deemed unacceptable by the industry body responsible for self regulation of advertising standards.
Hold on – this spot passes thesis called ‘bechtel test’ at every turn. The women are the smart resourceful ones, the man needs to be rescued by them and they don’t spend all their time talking about how they want men to notice them.
Frankly, all I see from your commentary Anne is firstly snobbery. That is, you think the casting looks cheap and overly sexualised. Though I would mention they are all wearing one piece suits – many other ads show bikinis that are much more revealing. Your complaint in this regard holds no water.
And secondly, I see a prudish attempt to draw an extraordinarily long bow to attach this to sexual violence from what at a first glance at the methodology is an incredibly poor piece of research that no University worth their salt would touch.
First they came for our ultratune ads. Then they came for our Happy Gilmore. Just because it isn’t to your taste doesn’t mean that it has to be banned.
For everyone saying “It isn’t the advertiser’s role to promote societal or industry good”.
Maybe not. But it should be their role to not be an idiot.
When you decide not to produce sexist and misogynistic work you’re not immediately Mother Theresa.
No one is asking advertiser’s to only make work that pushes progressive messages and attempts to change the world.
But before you commit to something maybe ask yourself – ‘is this a little bit shit?’
Imagine if you made something that treated your target market like intelligent and complex human beings?
Also – The work is cheap and designed to outrage.
You guys need to move on from this.
You should be better than a 4chan message board.
Seriously Anne.
Get a grip – a 30 second TVC is going to somehow propagate a “rape culture” – my take is that when Capper sees Pamela he isn’t “bedazzled” as you’ve indicated, he questions where or not it is her, as indicated by the inflection of his statement “Pamela Anderson?” The vehicle then malfunctions – presumably because it hasn’t been maintained correctly. Women, dressed in appropriate beach attire, using lifesaving equipment in a competent manner then come to the assistance of the vehicle’s occupants – only one of which needs assistance (the male). For years Ultra Tune ads were accused of showing women as being passive and in need of assistance, this year they show assertive, fit, athletic and responsive women – in a comedic and hyper-reality role and they are somehow still doing the wrong thing, blah blah, blah, drivel, drivel drivel. This is like the 6th or 8th version of this series of ads – they (presumably) are supposed to be corny and silly. If they weren’t working with the “65%” of women you (incorrectly) quote, then (presumably) Ultra Tune would have gone out of business – FACT is, Ultra Tune has been rated the Number One in its category by Canstar 3 out of the last 4 years – so it would suggest your beliefs are sadly out of touch with reality. Looking at some of the Ad Standards stats over the last few years, these ads had a couple of hundred complaints out of how many views – 5, 7, 8M views?? Hardly a compelling number of outraged viewers is it? If you somehow think there is any correlation between someone watching a 30 second “PG” rated TVC and then committing some sort of violent crime against anyone – male, female or gender neutral – you are delusional.
So who is the creative agency? Sorry if I missed this – we talk about making them accountable yet they aren’t included in the article.
This ad looks like it has been cooked up in the board room and produced by the cast of Animal House – really embarrassing on so many levels, surely we can do better. I don’t mind sex in advertising, but this is very smelly.
There was no creative agency. They came up with this all by themselves.
Discussing the clumsy attempt at making this a
‘sexy’ ad avoid the massive issues this ad has to begin with.
• The beach buggy thing loses its steering wheel, veers off and then stops suddenly, for no reason.
• Then it is stuck in the sand for no reason.
• Then a huge wave appears for no reason.
• Then one of the women looks at her mobile (there’s no time to read it and no UltraTune branding to speak of, so also no reason.
Then more stupid stuff happens and finally, Pamela says, “avoid unexpected events” or something, which given the lack of logic up until this point makes no sense.
The dodgy bikini element is a distraction from the incredibly crap script.
There’s nothing in the rule book of advertising that says it has to make sense, just that it creates awareness. Looks like it’s done its job.
No doubt they saved themselves a shed load of coin in agency fees, commissions and production markups and benefited with an increased media spend.
Terrible ad, dated, sexist, and simply badly executed. What were they thinking
As a prominent animal rights and political activist Pamela Anderson does more good in the world than all you whining critics put together and then multiplied by a thousand. If she chose to be in the ad then that is all the endorsement that should be needed. She is an intelligent and powerful women who has a world wide profile and this ad will increase her prominence and help her leverage even more good works in the future.
Anne Miles is, relatively speaking, completely unknown and rudely doesn’t even consider or discuss why Pamela Anderson agreed to the ad. Does Miles consider Anderson and the rest of the women in the ad to just be brainless Bimbos who have let themselves be used by the advertisers? How insulting is that !….This ad may not be to everyone’s taste but is essentially humorous and harmless. Well done Pamela Anderson and well done Ultratune for hiring her.
As a consumer I find the ad outrageous – but suspect I am not the target market
As a marketer I personally find the ad a cheap trick to gain a polarising view and discussion with a small budget.
As a brand owner I am concerned with the behaviour in this ad is something that UltraTune feel worth championing.
We have a huge responsibility in our roles, our brands drive culture and influence communities – it is that simple. Once upon a time if a doctor said it was ok to smoke in Marlboro commercial people followed.
I am for an industry where we believe customer insight, strategy and needs are the foundation.
The UltraTune spot to me is a finger up to the industry and Australia.
It is an execution that is immune to the everyday power our category brings
Hey Anne
Complaints against the TVC dismissed by a group of your peers – more women on that panel than men – guess you’re in the minority in relation to YOUR thoughts on the topic. Perhaps you can come up with another way to try and stay relevant in the industry which is passing you by. The system isn’t broken, the problem is that social media and sites such as this have given a whinging minority a voice that would otherwise by drowned out by either support or ambivalence. Good on you Ultra Tune for sticking to your guns – Pamela Anderson was a stroke of genius that has delivered far more brand awareness than anyone could of imagined and much of that is due to people such as Anne – Ultra Tune needs to put you on the payroll Anne or maybe even in their next ad??
Lol
There are some things that we know have a direct link to harms – illegal activity; violent abuse; smoking.
There are some things that have different interpretations – such as the issues raised in this opinion piece.
Let brands and marketers try whatever they want so long as they don’t break laws, and the market will determine whether their message works or not.
(and yeh I personally find these ads to be super cringe)
So much debate over a truly dreadful ad. It’s testament to the quality of Australian advertising (awful). Thank god for Netflix and ad-blockers.