To feel vindicated that John Lewis has pulled its awful ad with the boy in the dress trashing the house?

[Clymene]

I wrote to the ASA and complained. I said the ad was misleading (as into insurance will cover wilful damage), sexist (with a boy rampaging through the house and destroying his mother and sister's things, and sexualised.

I also called John Lewis and told them I hated it and why.

They've withdrawn it.

GOOD

Into = no

I hope the FCA has given them a load of shit too.

The statement says they have been advised it may be misleading (cavil). Silent on sexist, sexualising and stereotype problems.

Good! It was a stupid advert, the idea a child of that age wasn't intentionally causing damage is a load of bollocks. It could have been done so much better, without the boys will be boys message (which is what it was but dressed up to look woke and inclusive)

Have you nothing better to do?

@HeronLanyon

The statement says they have been advised it may be misleading (cavil). Silent on sexist, sexualising and stereotype problems.

The FCA is the Financial Conduct Authority. Their remit is very narrow - simply about whether the ad is accurate which is clearly isn't.

I hope it will make JLP and other businesses think harder about messaging more generally though.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Have you nothing better to do?

Don't you have better things to do than post on this thread?

The only way I could stomach it (when streaming ad included prog) was to see the child as a girl (and why not). It helped a bit but not with the basic problem of what ‘accidental’ means and what they were showing that it meant. Most stupid decision and I truly assume someone has been hauled over the coals or been let go for not thinking of this basic contractual problem.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Have you nothing better to do?

One could ask the same of you, tbf.

Good. It was misleading. Don't care about the boy in a dress.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Have you nothing better to do?

Better in what way? Howdo you measure the goodness of how a person spends their time? I'd guess the OP spent 5 minutes on this

That statement doesn't even make sense. The boy wasn't oblivious to the damage he caused, he simply didn't care what he trashed and who it belonged to.

They have totally side stepped the rest of the issues.

How did that advert even get passed the idea stage, when it clearly was misleading. It tells beggars belief such a big company didn't realise they would need to see if it was misleading or not.

It’s interesting to view it with the one of the girl dancing where the damage is more obviously accidental. I can see they were making this one on a sort of continuum with the first but they got it really wrong.

Bit embarrassing for them

Is this not totally humiliating for all involved? What does it say about the leadership at JL?

That statement doesn't even make sense. The boy wasn't oblivious to the damage he caused, he simply didn't care what he trashed and who it belonged to.

Exactly. How were they blind to this. Or not care

I didn’t complain but I agree that they couldn’t really argue it was all unintentional consequences that the boy was oblivious to. They could probably say it for a lot of the advert, but they lose the argument on the clearly very deliberate paint spilling, it wasn’t knocked off by an elbow as he danced past, he looked right at her, grabbed the paint, and threw it to the floor. The rest of it (kicking shoe off which then hits a lamp, running messy hand over furniture) you probably could argue were accidental.

I was glad to hear this on the news today. Dreadful advert, in every way.

Excellent news.

The JL statement is bollocks but of course it was. Idiots.

Good. I also complained to the ASA. Dreadful advert for so many reasons!

I read their policy in detail. It specifically excludes glass and chinaware, even if you take out the additional accidental damage policy.

No policy is going to cover you for your kid dancing with an umbrella in your Ming vase display room.

Excellent. Stupid, misleading advert. John Lewis are not God and I'm glad people like you, OP, complained.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Have you nothing better to do?

I think misleading home insurance advertising is pretty bloody serious, tbh.

I pay £45 a month for mine.

If I had to claim and it didn't pay out, I'd be up shit creek - and all that money paid in premiums would be down the drain. You might be able to throw money away, @Getyourarseofffthequattro, or have someone else pay insurance premiums for you and bail you out of a disaster, but not all of us do.

John Lewis have admitted this ad is misleading and have had to contact all its new customers since the 11th October. Huge PR disaster. Massive fail of their part.

John Lewis fuck up again. What a surprise.

I will never buy anything from them again, as they closed my local branch. They can fuck off with their 'all our customers want to shop online'. Some do, but lots don't.

Brilliant news!

I hope they have to pay out to those who took out insurance after this advert and who now say that, no, alas they did not understand and bought the insurance because the advert showed they could claim for this type of damage.

Well done to everyone who complained. It worked. Arse to you, @Getyourarseofffthequattro

I thought from the get-go it would cause them problems with either the ASA or the FCA due to the fact that the damage shown in the ad would not be covered by the product being advertised, yet many would imply from it that cover would be in place. So I’m not at all surprised it’s been pulled, I’m just surprised it’s taken this long.

But, the cynic in me is thinking what a lot of free name recognition JL are getting due to the wider aspects of the ad. It’s been the advertising version of clickbait.