Waitrose changes advert after complaints

[theplayingmantis]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63732117

Didn't see as thread on this, but am i being an insensitive oaf, but why. WTF is going on that something like this is deemed to be offensive to melanoma sufferers...

What about victims of agricultural machinery accidents? surely showing 2 chaps smiling whilst driving big farm machinery is a slap in the face for anyone injured by such machinery?

[Caddyshack]

Ffs…..the world needs to get a grip.

[Wozy68]

Caddyshack said:

Ffs…..the world needs to get a grip.

It’s madness …. However changing the advert because of it is even more madness.

I really wish those that made this decision would grow some and stand up for the silent majority and just old fashioned common sense.

[markbigears]

I used to love the creativity of TV adverts of old.
I certainly wouldn’t want to be in the industry these days.

[Caddyshack]

Wozy68 said:

Caddyshack said:

Ffs…..the world needs to get a grip.

It’s madness …. However changing the advert because of it is even more madness.

I really wish those that made this decision would grow some and stand up for the silent majority and just old fashioned common sense.

Yes, that is the maddest bit of all, we should just ignore the muppets.

[Sporky]

Wozy68 said:

the silent majority

Doesn't that just mean "me"?

Edited by Sporky on Thursday 24th November 17:44

[Biggy Stardust]

[oyster]

Commercial organisation makes a commercial decision.

Nothing to see here is there?

[chrispmartha]

oyster said:

Commercial organisation makes a commercial decision.

Nothing to see here is there?

And gets a load of free PR on the back of it.

wonder how many people moaning about them changing this ad were also moaning about John Lewis having an ad with a boy dressing up as a girl.

[Sporky]

Also it's funny seeing all the snowflakes being triggered by the decision.

[Eric Mc]

Sporky said:

Also it's funny seeing all the snowflakes being triggered by the decision.

Wow - you've managed two clichés in one sentence.

[Electro1980]

Biggy Stardust said:

You keep telling yourself that if it helps your self esteem.

[Wozy68]

EmailAddress said:

Ignoring historic advertisements.

Ignoring how this particular one has been implemented.

Ignoring the agenda.

Question : Do you not think that we, as a society, should be mindful of glamorising/ promoting/ highlighting unhealthy behaviour?

It's not a slippery slope. It's a development of society as we increase our understanding of the world. Inclusivity and health seem to really rankle with a certain demographic but I can vouch for the young being extremely eager to bring a level field from finance to climate, mind to legislation.

It’s actually more another nail in the coffin of just being able to live life and enjoying it and see what happens.

In a hundred years time when everyone is living to an average age of 100 … someone will be asking ‘did you enjoy your life and what risks did you take’ and the reply will be I lived to be 100 but I took no risks and had no fun … but then again I’ve lived to be 100 years old.

Honestly…. What an utter waste of a life that will be.

[theplayingmantis]

Sporky said:

Also it's funny seeing all the snowflakes being triggered by the decision.

No ones getting triggered by anything, it has no impact on me either way.

I'm simply curious to know what is wrong with the original and how its deemed to be promoting sun tans and insensitive to melanoma sufferers any more than its promoting using dangerous farm equipment and insensitive to those of us who have suffered from such equipment!

Maybe i'm too insensitive or maybe theres absolutely nothing offensive in the orginal, yet some people have nowt better to do than bleat to the press over nothing to get their 5 minutes of attention?

just wondering.

[Sporky]

Eric Mc said:

Sporky said:

Also it's funny seeing all the snowflakes being triggered by the decision.

Wow - you've managed two clichés in one sentence.

I know - I'd toyed with adding "gammon" or "butthurt" or various others, but decided that elegant simplicity was the right approach.

[theplayingmantis]

EmailAddress said:

Ignoring historic advertisements.

Ignoring how this particular one has been implemented.

Ignoring the agenda.

Question : Do you not think that we, as a society, should be mindful of glamorising/ promoting/ highlighting unhealthy behaviour?

While your personal line in the sand may be drawn above suntans. I'd wager we are all onboard with no tobacco advertising. I'd also wager that a good percentage are coming around to the idea that not pushing sugary, 'bad' foods on impressionable youths is also a good place to be.

So why get up in arms over something that is objectively both costly for us as tax payers and still a danger through ignorance to a lot of people.

It's not like they are woke-washing croissant sales because of Agincourt.

It's not a slippery slope. It's a development of society as we increase our understanding of the world. Inclusivity and health seem to really rankle with a certain demographic but I can vouch for the young being extremely eager to bring a level field from finance to climate, mind to legislation.

but its not glamourizing, promoting, sun tans, is it?

highlighting suntans perhaps, very briefly and inconsequentially, but how is it highlighting it in any other way than neutrally?

it shows people driving dangerous farm equipment yet smiling. Anyone raised on farms know how dangerous they are. As they are smiling they must be promoting/glamourizing it. Should that be removed from the ad too?

[theplayingmantis]

oyster said:

Commercial organisation makes a commercial decision.

Nothing to see here is there?

Yet you felt the need to post, if you thought that you wouldn't have bothered!

[shih tzu faced]

chrispmartha said:

wonder how many people moaning about them changing this ad were also moaning about John Lewis having an ad with a boy dressing up as a girl.

Not really comparable. The John Lewis home insurance ad was rightly pulled by the ASA for blatant mis-selling. It depicted a child wilfully smashing up items round his home, while his disinterested mother vaguely looked on. Of course this kind of deliberate damage would not actually be covered by home insurance. John Lewis clearly got so caught up with the excitement of dressing the boy up as a girl that they forgot about the actual product. It was a total shambles but at least their Christmas ad this year shows they’ve learned their lesson so fair play to them for that.

The Waitrose ad is different, I think they’re just bowing to virtually non-existent public pressure to change their ad. Could be wrong but I don’t think the ASA have been involved at all. Waitrose have totally over reacted to a storm in a teacup, pretty spineless if you ask me.

[chrispmartha]

shih tzu faced said:

chrispmartha said:

wonder how many people moaning about them changing this ad were also moaning about John Lewis having an ad with a boy dressing up as a girl.

Not really comparable. The John Lewis home insurance ad was rightly pulled by the ASA for blatant mis-selling. It depicted a child wilfully smashing up items round his home, while his disinterested mother vaguely looked on. Of course this kind of deliberate damage would not actually be covered by home insurance. John Lewis clearly got so caught up with the excitement of dressing the boy up as a girl that they forgot about the actual product. It was a total shambles but at least their Christmas ad this year shows they’ve learned their lesson so fair play to them for that.

The Waitrose ad is different, I think they’re just bowing to virtually non-existent public pressure to change their ad. Could be wrong but I don’t think the ASA have been involved at all. Waitrose have totally over reacted to a storm in a teacup, pretty spineless if you ask me.

But I specifically said the people that complained the boy was dressed as a girl, and there were some ;-)

I didn’t compare the ads in and of themselves.

[Caddyshack]

EmailAddress said:

It's not a slippery slope. It's a development of society as we increase our understanding of the world. Inclusivity and health seem to really rankle with a certain demographic but I can vouch for the young being extremely eager to bring a level field from finance to climate, mind to legislation.

It is a slippery slope in my opinion and one we have slipped a long way down already.

I am all for inclusivity and understanding cultures etc. but it’s the cancel culture and trying to find insult in everything. In a live and let live world we should also allow others to be "wrong’ or hold less popular opinions (and let’s not look for the insult in what I have written and suggest we should not be offended by Nazi’s or the KKK)