John Lewis and it’s ‘gender relaxed’ ad

I don't believe it's just happenstance that he trails turquoise and pink along the bannister and then sticks his hands in turquoise and pink paint and smears them on his cheeks.

It's deliberate

I've had a look at the Persil "Dirt is Good" campaign, which they are still running. They are quite charming.

This one is a work of art compared to John Lewis.

“ that's part of what's so puzzling - it's not even good propaganda”
Maybe thatbis because it isn’t propaganda- just a fairly stupid add? Working in big companies in design/advertising, i can more or less assure you that things like colours etc are hardly ever planned in any sort of rational way (unless its apple etc, but JL - I would be extremely surprised). The chance of this being actual “propaganda” (for WHAT?) is pretty much zero,
The likeliest version is some sort of random reasoning in the room for colour selection (first 5 people name favourite colours etc), a haphazard filming process with some overexcited child actors and some random last minute decisions…..

It's just really weird. What if you make your claims, get everything cleaned and tidied up and Reggie feels the need to "express himself" again - JL gonna keep paying up?? Oi Reggie, have a word with yourself

The differences for me are the JL advert has the boy being very deliberate, particularly with ruining his sister’s paint. The mess isn’t a side effect of “kids being kids”, he is just being unpleasant. And those other adverts weren’t selling home insurance that I find it hard to believe would pay out in this situation. Calpol isn’t implying they will fix the mess made. And Persil claiming to be able to get mud out of clothes is probably correct. It’s just annoying, and that would be the case even if they did switch the sex of the child.

The 2015 ad is also a weird ad for home insurance, since it doesn’t show anything you would need home insurance for. But the behaviour of the girl and any mess she does make (which is really minimal, just some paper flying around) actually is just a side effect of kids being kids. She’s not doing anything to the house on purpose, and there’s definitely no meanness, which there is with the boy and his sister.

Nothing slapstick about that whatsoever.

I agree that it's not a great ad. They miss the music for starters.

This does LGBT+ kids no favours at all.

that's part of what's so puzzling - it's not even good propaganda

Just seen it. No one here is exaggerating.

Depicts a gender non conforming boy as an angry, destructive, troubled brat - facial expressions hardly joyful.

Destroys the house around him - the two females in the house look scared and frozen to the spot. Intentionally destroys the girl child's activity. Wipes the colours of a well known political movement on face. Several very inappropriately sexualised actions for a young child.

Family in urgent need of intervention and help.

This does LGBT+ kids no favours at all.

i've had another look at the ad - teal and pink clothes in the opening shot too

also, i know it's already been covered but - bowls of glitter? WTF?

The 2015 advert doesn't show the girl deliberately causing damage. This one the boy has for a start presumably unstuffed a pillow, and can be seen kicking his shoes off at the lamps and deliberately tipping paint on the carpet.

I imagine post pandemic there have been lots of parents trying to let kids have fun in lockdown and having to put up with the mess and destruction. I remember a long and boring January where we frequently trashed the house to entertain bored small kids.

What, you tipped your kids paints all over the floor whilst they were happily painting, chucked your shoes at the light fittings and stood on the dining room table chucking glitter everywhere?

My house was a complete mess in most of lockdown, but not because I had let my spoilt brat of a son deliberately and aggressively trash it because he was 'expressing himself' or whatever horseshit the explanation is supposed to be.

And anyway, as others have pointed out, JL insurance wouldn't cover this sort of wilful damage, so the ad is pointless anyway.

I'm not saying it's a great ad, just that it's not a huge trans capture

The Persil ad is no where the same, that message is if they get dirty it washes out with Persil.

You are probably in a distinct minority who let children trash and cause destruction to the house, most of us muddled through without having to do that.

The ballerina advert was very different.

the benefit of the insurance being you can relax and 'let life happen' knowing you're covered

1. no insurance would cover you for what that little shit is doing

2. being insured is not an excuse to let your children behave like little shits

My guess is in 2015 people didn't realise why an insurance ad had a little girl dancing so the market research said 'make the link to insurance more obvious' so they upped the anti on the destruction.

Like I said before everyone's lockdown experience probably helped in this.

I think its adland trying to do a 2.0 of a winning ad. Nowt to do with the trans issue and at worst a bit of unconscious bias at play.

It was. In 2015 it was a girl...

In 2015, the girl accidentally knocked some papers off the table and nearly tipped over a vase while she was so engrossed in her dancing.

She didn't deliberately trash her parents house and aggressively ruin her brothers activity that he was quietly and happily getting on with at the time, then proceed to smear her face with paint while strutting towards the camera.

The amount of idiots who think this is ‘breaking gender stereotypes’ simply because he’s wearing a dress is shocking. Just shows that they’re secretly very conservative IMO.

Yes, it just reinforces the idea of boys being aggressors, being allowed to 'express themselves' by trashing other people's stuff, whilst the females have to just accept it and most likely pick up the pieces afterwards.

'Breaking gender stereotypes' my arse.

This is the ad from 2015 that was very similar.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=YqgoUWPx4eE

They've just gone a step beyond to show a) actual destruction and b) the benefit of the insurance being you can relax and 'let life happen' knowing you're covered.

I don't work for JL by the way 😂

I think I'll insure with JL and smear lipstick over my well passed its sell by date stair carpet. ......... might have a new one by Xmas!!

I think the sex of the kid is irrelevant and could easily be swapped. then why wasn't it

I think they are trying to tap into an insight around being able to be relaxed about kids being kids.

Persil used the same insight for years with their 'dirt is good' campaign.

I imagine post pandemic there have been lots of parents trying to let kids have fun in lockdown and having to put up with the mess and destruction. I remember a long and boring January where we frequently trashed the house to entertain bored small kids.

I think the sex of the kid is irrelevant and could easily be swapped.

Sexist drivel - little boy messes stuff up and craps up sister’s paints and throws them on the carpet while sister and mum (?) watch passively.

The amount of idiots who think this is ‘breaking gender stereotypes’ simply because he’s wearing a dress is shocking. Just shows that they’re secretly very conservative IMO.

I hope the ASA get a load of complaints. I also don’t like the whiff of male aggression towards his sister. I know it might not be the intent, but it made me feel uncomfortable.