Ritson: Ad Standards breaches pile up as strategy goes AWOL

"Three Australian ads, from three different countries of origin, in three different sectors, executing three different Ad Standards rulings in less than three weeks. A motorcyclist in his underwear briefly touching a mounted phone. A husband slipping a tracker into his wife's wallet without telling her. A man at a Sunday barbecue being repeatedly slapped on the head with thongs by his mates. The product propositions were online privacy, location tracking and cloud accounting. The visual metaphors were unsafe motorcycle phone use, non-consensual surveillance and casual physical assault."

"Each brand argued, when challenged, that the work was stylised, light-hearted or fantastical. Each was rejected by the same regulator. The question hanging over the past fortnight is whether three identical defences in a row represent three unlucky judgements or one structural flaw in how Australian brands are commissioning creative."

"The barbecue ad does the opposite. The violence is the spectacle and the cloud accounting is the alibi. Ad Standards ruled the assault sequence portrayed violence "not justifiable in the context of the product or service being advertised." Hnry argued the spot was light-hearted."

"A week earlier, the same panel banned a Facebook post for Spotminders, a brand that sells credit card sized tracking devices. The ad features a husband to camera. He does not want to spend his Sunday morning doing a "tactical sweep of the driveway" because his wife has forgo"

Three Australian ads from different countries and sectors were banned by the same regulator within three weeks. The ads promoted online privacy, location tracking, and cloud accounting. One ad showed a motorcyclist briefly touching a mounted phone while in underwear. Another showed a husband slipping a tracker into his wife’s wallet without her knowledge. A third showed a man at a Sunday barbecue repeatedly slapped on the head with thongs by friends. Each brand claimed the content was stylised, light-hearted, or fantastical, but the regulator rejected the defenses. The regulator found the violence and surveillance depictions were not justifiable in relation to the advertised product or service.

Read at Mumbrella