Talk

We may be proving his point in a way, but I think general consensus is that anything controversial put out in the meeja is going to get attention, so it's not the fact that the ad is outside, it's the fact that it's upsetting people. So unless all their subsequent clients intend to alienate and offend customers with their advertising then they simply aren't going to see the same sort of numbers of people reacting to their adverts.

This sort of controversy works for admen advertising advertising space, but it won't work for advertisers advertising to customers IYKWIM.

Response from Boris, below. No response from the ASA yet

Subject: Sexist advertising campaigns on London Buses

The Mayor would like to thank you for your interest in his work and he is keen to answer your query as quickly and fully as possible. As you will appreciate, he receives very large amount of correspondence but he is committed to responding to your query within 20 working days.

However, the Greater London Authority (GLA) will only respond to queries that relate to its work and will refer relevant queries to the appropriate functional body for them to reply e.g. transport related queries will be referred to Transport for London (TfL).

Please note that the GLA does not accept unsolicited job applications or C.V's. Information on current vacancies is available on our website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/jobs.jsp

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Yours truly

Public Liaison Unit

lol wahwah

we might need to wrap that round the bus on both levels

or this would be nice

I wonder whether we could start a fundraising thread to pay for one bus with 'Gary Lace, for example, is a ...' on the side.

<muses>

Agree with Mrs chemist-perhaps we should find out their clients and email them.

What we need is a facebook campaign

'Gary Lace, for example ...'

Will someone techno literate start one?

but foxinsocks - people would also talk about 'Beat up somebody who annoys you today' or 'Gay people should be <<insert nasty thing - I can't bring myself to>>' or anything about the holocaust....but they don't use that do they? No - because it's offensive. So why does that arguement that they want people to talk about it make it ok to attack women - because that's what this shit is. It's an attack and it makes me sick. Why isn't everybody offended by it - admen included? There's still a fucking long way to go

What a nasty advert. I am a sahm, it's what I believe is right for my kids, but to say ANY group are 'bad mothers' is a ridiculous generalisation. I'm sure some career women are bad mothers- as are some people with blonde hair, or some people who like Marmite.

Equally ridiculous are some of the comments on this thread that 'all admen are...'. Some of them are very nice and ethical I'm sure!

The thing about financing a rival campaign

Is that it costs money. Around £1.2m if figures are to be believed

The internet is the solution, I tell ya

I saw the billboards too its shocking

Dare him to do a webchat on here then you can eat him alive!

As others have said this statement with pretty much any other word before the 'make bad mothers' would have been banned so why was this statement acceptable?

What about 'Admen lie for a living'?

I really don't want to diss admen

after all Salman Rushdie coined 'Naughty But Nice'/ And didn't DL Sayers have a career in advertising?

Can't we just get specific about these admen?