John Lewis and it’s ‘gender relaxed’ ad

So much group think must have happened during the pitch for this ad.

In my head this happened: Ad agency reiterated the brief before they showed the ad, they probably changed a few words to make the ad fit the brief perfectly. Words such as: edgy, dynamic, challenging stereotypes, pushing boundaries and energy were probably used. There was probably a little bit of funny/anecdotal story telling weaved into the pitch about children and the shenanigans they get up to, everyone laughed. The JL team were encouraged to tell their own stories about their little monsters…everyone is now on the same page, agreeing that children can be little terrors, but what funny stories they provide us with (and my boss laughed at mine), oh and what a fun meeting this is!!

Lights are dimmed, the ad played. Everyone liked the ad on first view, as it matched the brief the ad agency had just (changed) reminded them of perfectly. A comment was cautiously made by someone from JL in appreciation, the commentator was affirmed by the ad agency ‘yeah, your so right’ and the commentator felt good about themselves, this then gave the ad agency another chance to expand on how the ad hit the brief. Then the comments of appreciation came flooding in, everyone was told how right they were. There was probably one or two people from JL in the room who had a few doubts - because they knew that the ad was a little misleading, did it actually represent the product? But by this point, the ‘positive energy’ in the room was at fever pitch and everyone was busily patting everyone else on the back. So those that had a few questions started to doubt their own feelings (maybe they were reading too much into it) and kept quiet. After all, if anyone from JL was overly critical, then they are in affect criticising their own ability to select an agency and provide a proper brief.

That line about ‘the story we hit on’ from the JL rep, those are not her words, they were words from the ad agency as they set the scene, reiterated (changed) the brief. It’s all such a fucking cliche.

How does everyone know he's a boy, btw?

Are we genuinely supposed to assume he's literally a boy in a dress? How?

No issue with the dress or the makeup. That bit looks fun.

But why are the mum and the sister just sitting there?! Are there really mums who would just look mildly alarmed and sit passively while their kid wrecked stuff?! Are there really little sisters who would not have objected when he knocked their paints onto the floor?

If JL really wanted to Let Life Happen the sister would have kicked off and there'd have been a screaming match at least.
Also if that was in my house I'd have intervened at the point he deliberately kicked his shoes at those lamps.

Perhaps JL have a new policy - wilful damage covered but only if caused by special children when performing sexualised caricatures of adult femininity. Anything else would surely be Erasing Their Literal Existence and Denying Their Lived Experience. Hope they get a few claims off the back of this shitshow of an ad.

That would be the same Desmond who was photographed with a fully naked drag queen, right?

The fact that the original ad had a young girl dancing (who was also subtly sexualised with references to Flash dance) in her home makes this one worse IMO.

I’m picturing the ad firm luvvies going "OMG, we’ll be so on trend if we just reverse the sexes of the child of our last ad and ramp up the chaos!’…No thought at all to wider implications to a message about female passivity in the face of destruction…

No, just utterly and completely cynical and exploitative of young children’s play. As well as boring and unimaginative. Bad timing for them and JL in light of the growing anger about the treatment of women and girls caught in an onslaught of misogyny.

One of the commenters on Youtube says that the boy in the advert is reminiscent of a younger Desmond Is Amazing (child drag queen, Google him if you don't know). I think the commenter is correct, but don't agree that this is in any way a good thing.

Just mentioning it for the posters who claim to think that we're reading too much into a harmless portrayal of a boy in a dress. It's not the dress that is the problem.

Does anyone know where this Ad has been broadcast? I haven’t seen it on TV (thank god).

The not-very-subliminal text I'm now getting from it is "let him do whatever the hell he wants and then clean up his mess afterwards".

Here's the advert with the girl

m.youtube.com/watch?v=YqgoUWPx4eE

It's more of an occasion to "do some parenting".

Although the let it happen tag is terrible anyway as no, you shouldn't let needless, purposeful and actually quite intimidating damage happen- if that's what they wanted to roll with there are plenty of ways they could have shown siblings playing and having fun, causing genuinely accidental damage. It seems very purposeful to show what they have, and flipping the paints over and mum cowering in what looks like the kitchen is really weird to be honest.

Irrespective of any feminism angle, I just watched the ad and was horrified to see a child wrecking the home. There was no joy in it. It wasn't cute. The child is too old for it to be thoughtless exuberance. If my DC had done any damage like that, I would have been distraught. It's horrific. I really find it hard to believe anyone would like that ad, with all that wanton damage.

I agree. Maybe would've been cute if the child were a toddler (under 3/1 or 2), if it wasn't sexualised.
It's awful damage, I can't imagine anyone watching it could think differently

Sexist*

This is an awful advert.
I completely agree that the posesnand pouts were adult and sexualised. The way he was looking up on the sofa reminded me of how in some photoshoots/music videos women are looking up lying in bed in their underwear. Completely inappropriate.

The behaviour gives off 'boys will be boys and do whatever the fuck they want' vibes, he was awful to his sister who was just meekly sitting there.

Would it not have been better to have brother in dress with sister, maybe painting each others nails as a completely normal thing to do? Just in background about a situation their insurance actually covers.... that would have been grand! And a far more effective message about breaking down sextet stereotypes. This feels more drag than just normally dressing up and doing your nails. Could have been a great advert.

I'm wondering if the aim is to get people talking and if so JL has succeeded.

1. The advert is clearly false advertising as the insurance wouldn't pay out for a kid causing deliberate havoc

1. Subliminal message about the patriarchy shitting all over women and girls as SirChenjins cleverly pointed out.

Wasn't the predecessor to this advert, a few years ago now, a little girl doing exactly the same thing? Yes, I remember, because my mum thought it was based on me!!

I’ve just watched that, and she’s dancing and accidentally knocks things (a plant pot wobbles, a picture on the wall goes wonky) but there is no actual damage and the only mess she makes is some paper flying around.
So quite different to this advert where he’s just being a brat, throwing paint around.

Irrespective of any feminism angle, I just watched the ad and was horrified to see a child wrecking the home. There was no joy in it. It wasn't cute. The child is too old for it to be thoughtless exuberance. If my DC had done any damage like that, I would have been distraught. It's horrific. I really find it hard to believe anyone would like that ad, with all that wanton damage.

I agree with this. The child is behaving terribly and it’s definitely an occasion to not just “let life happen.”

Well I've complained

Very bizarre but potentially damaging it the John Lewis brand they'd do well to stop it now

Blimey John Lewis has changed. What happened to safeguarding in this country - sexualised kid dancing and pouting with a femme fatale style final frame? #nothankyou
The mums bedroom and dressing table trashed, the sisters enjoyment upset and that’s supposed to be depicting joy? I guess they had a TRA on the design team and everyone else was too scared to say no.
If they show this ad at any time my kids can see it I will be even more annoyed.

That is a really weird advert.

His sense of entitlement and brattish behaviour, riding roughshod all over the women in his life. Maybe the advertising director is on Mumsnet.

Little shit and they'd never pay out in a million years.

The worst use of that song since Beyonce, Kelly and the other one hijacked it.