Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

503 replies

Clymene · 27/10/2021 18:42

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They've withdrawn it.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

To feel vindicated that John Lewis has pulled its awful ad with the boy in the dress trashing the house?
OP posts:
EishetChayil · 28/10/2021 07:43

@Franca123

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

It says that they've been completely Stonewalled!

MackenCheese · 28/10/2021 07:46

The only thing good about the ad was the music!

TirednWorried · 28/10/2021 07:49

I dont know why the op is so smug about this. The ad was taken down purely on the basis of being misleading. Nothing sboit her complaints of sexualisation or sexism

ColinTheKoala · 28/10/2021 07:58

@TirednWorried

I dont know why the op is so smug about this. The ad was taken down purely on the basis of being misleading. Nothing sboit her complaints of sexualisation or sexism
The ASA will still investigate those though. You don't get a free pass because the advert has been pulled - there will still be a ruling down the line which may or may not uphold the other complaints.

Personally I think it should uphold complaints about gender stereotyping - ok the boy was wearing a dress, but the girl was dutifully painting and the mother just sat there letting her son do what he liked. I suspect the ASA won't uphold complaints about sexualisation but you never know.

Pottedpalm · 28/10/2021 08:07

Surely the ad must have been presented to a panel at JL for approval? What on earth were they thinking?Maybe someone influential was backing it and others failed to speak out.

Pandaly · 28/10/2021 08:08

The FCA have done a good job here protecting vulnerable customers who may have believed it covered the sort of actions shown. I'm glad JL will be ringing everyone of their new customers to check they understand.

LoislovesStewie · 28/10/2021 08:08

Good; it was a bloody stupid idea from start to finish. And the 'mother' clearly didn't believe in parenting her child at all. Just wreck the house dear, it's fine. I'll just watch fondly while my possessions are destroyed.

LorenzoVonMatterhorn · 28/10/2021 08:16

@Pottedpalm

Surely the ad must have been presented to a panel at JL for approval? What on earth were they thinking?Maybe someone influential was backing it and others failed to speak out.
Anyone with any sense in that meeting was probably being silenced by the woke brigade.
Srettel · 28/10/2021 08:26

I've just seen the ad on Facebook, with the "John Lewis" bit changed to an advert for Durex.

NoSquirrels · 28/10/2021 08:41

@Srettel

I've just seen the ad on Facebook, with the "John Lewis" bit changed to an advert for Durex.
GrinGrin
Helleofabore · 28/10/2021 08:51

@TirednWorried

I dont know why the op is so smug about this. The ad was taken down purely on the basis of being misleading. Nothing sboit her complaints of sexualisation or sexism
Does that mean you don’t agree that the child has been portrayed in a sexualised fashion and there is sexism in the roles of the sister and mother?

At all?

hedgehogger1 · 28/10/2021 08:53

There wasn't anything "nice" about it. It was a kid deliberately trashing his sisters stuff and the house while the mum watched. The only thing it advertised was shit parenting

JovialNickname · 28/10/2021 09:03

@iklboogiemaninthecloset

Dread to think what their Christmas advert will be like after this debacle...

Santa in drag nicking the presents instead of leaving them. Leaving on a cow that identifies as a reindeer, which trashes the house.

Grin
MamDancer · 28/10/2021 09:06

@blacksax

The trashing stuff annoyed me and did the pro trans corner no favours. It sort of said when a male dresses like a female he can do what he wants and deliberately trample over other peoples belongings with a two fingers up attitude

Swap the word 'belongings' for 'rights' and people might start thinking that it could happen in the real world. Oh, wait...

Tha was my take on the ad. Gave me the rage. It sent a clear message. TRA must have been thrilled with it.
AlfonsoTheUnrepetant · 28/10/2021 09:16

I thought the advert a subtle nod to TRAs: a little boy wearing makeup trashes his sister's belongings while his mother looks on approvingly because someone will pick up the bill for the damage. It's not difficult to see the message in that.

Helleofabore · 28/10/2021 09:21

The stonewall colour combo dabbed like warrior paint on the boy’s face was more than a nod.

I haven’t looked at that many kid’s paint sets lately, but I have not noticed one with those distinct shades placed in just the right position that two hands reaching down would magically fall on just those colours.

Magic stuff.

Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet · 28/10/2021 09:28

@Hugoslavia

Misleading as it may have been, since when have people really been offended by the terms of home insurance policy content? Let's face it, it was always about a boy in a dress and people concerned that this signaled an erosion of women's rights, right down to the very literal interpretation of the woman/girl in the advert having been silenced. There are a lot of disingenuous people who purport to be open minded here.
My problem with it was that it sent a message that males can do what the fuck they like, including to females, as long at they are just expressing themselves. If the boy in the advert hadn't been wearing a dress and had just been wearing bog standard 'Boys clothes' and was just running around rather than strutting, no one would have thought that sort of behaviour was acceptable or 'joyful'. So why does it become acceptable just because he is wearing a dress?

Plus it portays gender non-conforming kids as selfish brats which is also total shit.

It's really crap of JL to throw the actor under the bus like that as well isn't it - he was probably so excited to be in the ad, and at the time everyone was probably telling him that the ad would be really popular and that he really needs to go for it with the facial expressions and the strutting around. And now there is the implication from JL that it was him who got 'carried away'. Poor kid.

Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet · 28/10/2021 09:34

I'm also wondering if some of this was deliberate on the part of JL.

I mean, I've never worked in advertising, but surely the absolute starting point when coming up with an ad campaign is 'make sure that you don't show the customer stuff that the product doesn't actually delivery?

I don't get how they could have got it so wrong?

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 28/10/2021 09:34

I am going to complain to JL about throwing the young actor under the bus. Were there no adults involved in the process at all.

Fetarabbit · 28/10/2021 09:38

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I am going to complain to JL about throwing the young actor under the bus. Were there no adults involved in the process at all.
Yes it is a shame, if the advert was properly planned it would have been an excellent opportunity for the young actor.
SpindleWorl · 28/10/2021 09:40

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I am going to complain to JL about throwing the young actor under the bus. Were there no adults involved in the process at all.
I'll join you in that - but who do we complain to? Would it be the ASA?

Or a child actors' union / safeguarding dept?

It's sickening to see all the adults involve blame the child, wanging on how much the child was enjoying it. Fuck off.

Chachachawoo · 28/10/2021 10:03

Thank you op.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 28/10/2021 10:05

I’m going start by complaining to John Lewis suggesting they amend their statement

SpindleWorl · 28/10/2021 10:12

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude, have you received a reply from JL about anything to do with this advert? I did email when I first saw it about its being misleading and sexist, but I didn't even get a standard 'blah blah' reply.

Mind you, it took a major charity months to reply to me. Not that they said much of note. All very 'sorry you feel that way about us being Stonewalled'. Absolute melts, the lot of them.

SolasAnla · 28/10/2021 10:34

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

I'm also wondering if some of this was deliberate on the part of JL.
.....
I don't get how they could have got it so wrong?

There is a reason insurance companies are late adopters the "modern"

Selling Insurance is a regulated industry.
As well as allocating fines the FCA can remove a person's ability work in the industry.

The insurance company has a legal obligation to hire competent staff who understand what misselling to a customer is.
They have to continue to train staff on this too
They hire whole teams of staff who's job it is to document every task to make sure they comply with the rules (which is expensive to do).

In this case the customer is RegularJoe who has little understanding of how contracts exclude the specific things which the ad showed were covered.
To set out with the intent to take money for something which not covered is intent to defraud.

The ownership of this type of mistake goes the whole way to the top of the organisation because they failed to put in a appropriate system of checks or hired staff were not competent in applying the checks etc.

Other insurance companies will point and laugh at the public embarrassment and their HRs quietly note the staff involved.

If JL staff set out to make an ad that mis-sold the product the that would be gross misconduct and could even be a criminal offence.