Better than a live rat, surely?
What is it with stories about ASA investigations? Can we seriously no longer wait for the adjudication to come out? Has advertising regulation gone mainstream and become newsworthy for more than just us geeks? I've seen the Costa Coffee story pop up in a few places (including outside the UK) and now this:
Today's Sunday Telegraph reports that an ad campaign being run by a group of major drug companies to discourage consumers from buying prescription drugs illegally online is being investigated by the ASA. (Newspapers love the phrase "is being investigated"; it sounds so dramatic and serious when all it means is that there have been complaints, which may end up proving groundless, but you don't know whether they are or not until you investigate them, so...)
As you can see if you watch the YouTube video pasted in the story (or if you've seen the ad on telly), it shows a man taking a dodgy pill which then causes him to cough up a dead rat. The voiceover explains that rat poison is sometimes found in dodgy pills. To my mind, this suggests that the man has had a live rat living in the back of his throat all this time, and the pill has done him the service of killing it for him, but perhaps I'm being a bit too literal. Two other reasons, entirely unconnected with regulation, why I feel the ad lacks impact. First, I like my public health information campaigns to be unsullied by the transparent commercial self-interest of the advertiser; second, because I think the dead rat actually looks quite cute. Or is that just me?
Anyway, the same ad attracted complaints when it was shown in cinemas before 15 and 18-rated films, and those complaints were not upheld. However, different rules and standards apply for ads that you pay to sit in a big dark room full of strangers to watch as opposed to those that apply for ads on the shiny magic box in the corner of your living room. If the ASA agrees with me and decides not to uphold it because, really, the rat is quite cute, then I wonder if the Telegraph will publish a follow-up story.
Today's Sunday Telegraph reports that an ad campaign being run by a group of major drug companies to discourage consumers from buying prescription drugs illegally online is being investigated by the ASA. (Newspapers love the phrase "is being investigated"; it sounds so dramatic and serious when all it means is that there have been complaints, which may end up proving groundless, but you don't know whether they are or not until you investigate them, so...)
As you can see if you watch the YouTube video pasted in the story (or if you've seen the ad on telly), it shows a man taking a dodgy pill which then causes him to cough up a dead rat. The voiceover explains that rat poison is sometimes found in dodgy pills. To my mind, this suggests that the man has had a live rat living in the back of his throat all this time, and the pill has done him the service of killing it for him, but perhaps I'm being a bit too literal. Two other reasons, entirely unconnected with regulation, why I feel the ad lacks impact. First, I like my public health information campaigns to be unsullied by the transparent commercial self-interest of the advertiser; second, because I think the dead rat actually looks quite cute. Or is that just me?
Anyway, the same ad attracted complaints when it was shown in cinemas before 15 and 18-rated films, and those complaints were not upheld. However, different rules and standards apply for ads that you pay to sit in a big dark room full of strangers to watch as opposed to those that apply for ads on the shiny magic box in the corner of your living room. If the ASA agrees with me and decides not to uphold it because, really, the rat is quite cute, then I wonder if the Telegraph will publish a follow-up story.
posted by Daniel Owen at
1:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home