The John Lewis advert for home insurance

[DartmoorChef]

Surely I can't be the only person to find this advert absolutely terrible. Yay let's put a boy in a dress and make up and be so woke... and let him completely trash the house while mummy looks on indulgently because apparently home insurance covers wilful damage these days...

If I had gone on the rampage around the house like that... my backside would have been so sore I wouldn't have say down for a week, nor would I have been allowed out or given spending money until I was 35

Seriously though, this has to be one of the most absurd adverts I've ever seen and yes I know by posting about it, that is probably the desired effect but it actually puts me off shopping at John Lewis or using their services.

Yanbu - ridiculous advert
Yabu - it's fine and a bit of fun

I started a new thread because I didn't want this to get lost on existing ones.

Their legal counsel should have advised. Financial products are really strictly regulated. It was stupid of them not to get sign off.

Such a stupid waste of money.

When I worked in financial services I practically lived in Compliance.

John Lewis controls the message

They hardly seem to be in control of anything in this case

When I worked in financial services I practically lived in Compliance

Financial services appear to be going through a weird phase too regarding ads at the moment

@KittenKong

Agency should have know though - when I take briefs for jobs it’s up to me to say ‘whoa there!’ when the client wants something bananas.

But I'm not sure which you talking about, here: the theme of the ad or the fact that JL failed to recognise/or overlooked the potential for misleading customers over what its insurance policies cover as standard? Are you saying the agency should have picked up on that?

There was an earlier ad (in 2015) with a girl dancing by the same agency, adam&eveDDB:

The theme of the ad - unless of course it was clanged that was in in the execution.

Either way - the project manager should have followed the project from brief to execution to make sure it didn’t hit a bum note. Which it did! Someone’s name was on the project - and that means the Buck stops with them.

More likely the creative director but they’ll shake it off.

Other thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4375697-Male-entitlement-in-the-John-Lewis-ad

List of creatives at the end of this Adweek report:

www.adweek.com/creativity/john-lewis-joyful-ad-lets-a-boy-embrace-his-inner-stevie-nicks/

I had a peek at the agency (vaguely familiar but it’s been a long time since I worked with agencies). The didn’t have a rep of being edgy or wokey (of course things may have changed). They still have the wee housewrecking horror or their twitter account banner.

The creative was a man. Such a shocker...

Either doesn’t have kids and/or doesn’t clean up after them!

I had a peek at the agency (vaguely familiar but it’s been a long time since I worked with agencies). The didn’t have a rep of being edgy or wokey

Adam&Eve owned by the global agency DDB based in the USA (New York). Explains a lot

Such a shocker

It's more shocking that they are unrepentant and appear to think nothing of the fact that the ad had to be pulled down and their client threw probably millions down the drain on this (and to top it all off, the campaign may push away customers)

@Claudethecat

I feel a bit sorry for the young actor caught up in this.

Don't worry about him. He is only a kid, and in a couple of years time, no-one will recognise him. He'll be fine.

People are Teflon, usually males

If you get someone with a big ego and ability to railroad everyone they won’t reflect.

LittleDandelionClock yeah, I know. But he must have really excited to get the part in a high profile ad campaign and now it's all gone horribly wrong. It must be really upsetting for him.

@Claudethecat

LittleDandelionClock yeah, I know. But he must have really excited to get the part in a high profile ad campaign and now it's all gone horribly wrong. It must be really upsetting for him.

Yeah you have a point. Hope he is OK...

I just rewatched both the tiny dancer and edge of seventeen ads to try and compare. Tiny dancer, other than one point where I think she throws a toy- but it's more that she doesn't know her own strength than that she aimed to hurl it- is gentle. It's all near misses or stuff that can easily be tidied back up, caused by a child completely wrapped up in the song. The point they're trying to make- shit happens, stuff could get damaged so get insurance, is clear. The girl is a metaphor for a tornado!

Edge of seventeen boy ransacks at least 3 rooms and causes purposeful damage. Other than maybe knocking a few pictures astray, there's nothing very accidental about any of it- and no one stops him. As insurance metaphors go, this seems more like the inevitability of being burgled and having your house vandalised when you do not lock your front door and leave all the windows open...

@Claudethecat

I feel a bit sorry for the young actor caught up in this.

So do I. It is a ghastly advert, where a badly behaved kid trashes a house just for the hell of it while his mother gazes adoringly on. Why the silly dress?

Surely it was intentional ? No one can be that stupid. I always assume these dodgy ads are based on the premise it gets us talking. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

I too feel sorry for the boy in the ad.

Why the silly dress?

Woke bandwagoning.