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They've withdrawn it.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

@AICM

Surely the more talked about an ad is the more successful it is?

A lot of people wouldn't have known about John Lewis insurance before this ad and still wouldn't have after the ad if it hadn't been for the fuss.

Joh Lewis wanted more people to know the sell insurance - job done, great ad.

I doubt it. Not many would go to an agency with that aim

Do me an ad that gets pulled.

Do me an ad that gets pulled

I agree with a PP. The agency saw them coming

The old saying any publicity is good publicity doesn't work in this case, they've pissed off too many customers, me included...

@HeronLanyon

Just looked at the ASA council membership. More diverse than I had thought it would be. More women than I thought there might be. I also know one of them ! Would be interesting to know if they act in majority capacity. I also agree re sexualised/stereotyped training - may do some digging as to who trains them. Like maya f asking the judicial college for this info under freedom of info. Advertising is all pervasive in effect it’s interesting.

Just to say the Council don't write the rulings. The staff at the ASA are for the most part, not lawyers, and are quite young and inexperienced. It's usually a largely rubber stamp process.

However, there is an appeal process and it is possible that the ASA could reverse a ruling. It doesn't happen very often (an example a few years ago was when a Cycling Scotland ad showed someone without a helmet and the ASA said it encouraged dangerous behaviour - and then reversed the decision when it was pointed out the Highway Code encourages helmet wearing but does not require it).

If it had been to raise awareness of an issue, it would have been successful

But that's the point, isn't it. Companies' ads should sell products, they should have nothing to do with 'raising awareness'. Leave that to lobby groups or politics. The problem is that activism is encroaching on the business world as agencies appear to be able to find time and time again clueless management with cash to burn

@Clymene

I have had a reply from the ASA. They have acknowledged that the FCA considered the ad was misleading. They considered all the other complaints (these are not all things I said, this is the sum of criticisms) and rejected them all.

The ASA Council’s decision

1. Council considered that the purpose of the ad was to deliver a message of joy and, whilst it may appear to some that the child was being destructive, to illustrate that children sometimes get carried away with their play and that accidents can happen as a result of this. Whilst Council acknowledged complainants' concerns about children emulating the behaviour, they noted that Clearcast – the body responsible for pre-clearing TV ads – had applied restrictions on the ad to prevent it being broadcast around programmes commissioned for, principally directed at, or likely to appeal to children under 16. Whilst this did not necessarily mean the ads could not be shown around programming which might attract a wider, family audience, it ensured they were less likely to be seen by children watching alone without supervision. Therefore, given the scheduling restrictions and the overall message of the ad, Council concluded that the ad was unlikely to be seen as irresponsible.
2. Council noted that the ad featured a young boy who had been playing dress up and was seen wearing an oversized dress over his clothing along with a pair of heeled shoes. They also noted that the makeup on his face appeared to be messy and likely to have been applied by a child. Council therefore considered that the way the child was dressed and the use of makeup was unlikely to be seen as being sexualised, but considered that viewers were likely to have perceived the male character as confident and empowered, and to be having fun. Council considered that the ad made no specific reference to his sexual orientation or identified gender. They also considered that the movements and poses made by the child were part of his playful dancing, and it had not been presented in a way that was inappropriate or would be seen as sexualised. Council concluded, therefore, that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, or be seen as inappropriate or to cause harm.
3. Council acknowledged that both the female characters in the ad did not intervene when various items around the house were either damaged or knocked over, however they considered that their reactions would likely be seen as light hearted bemusement at the boy's dancing and attire rather than being seen as passive or scared of the boy's behaviour. Whilst the boy was shown to knock over what appears to be his sister's paints, he was not depicted as angry or violent, nor did the girl appear to be frightened, and Council considered that the ad was unlikely to suggest that he was bullying the girl. Council therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence on the basis that the ad was sexist, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, or suggestive of bullying or domestic abuse, or that it would be seen as condoning such behaviour.
4. Council noted that the child was seen knocking paints onto the floor and also throwing glitter in the air. They considered that the ad was intended to highlight the joyous feeling children often experience through play and that the very brief scenes in which any wasteful damage was caused were incidental to the overall message of the ad, and were largely accidental. Council considered that there was nothing in the ad that was likely to have been interpreted as a suggestion that unnecessary waste was acceptable behaviour, or that viewers should engage in behaviour prejudicial to the environment. Council therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to have broken the rules for the reasons suggested.

However, we have made the advertiser aware of the further issues that were brought to our attention in case they wish to take on-board the information provided when creating their ads in the future.

Isn't this meant to be confidential?

They've made a decision in record time. I had a feeling they wouldn't uphold on these points - probably don't dare do anything else.

So glad it's gone. I hope all those involved hang their heads in shame.

Shame on you John Lewis, you utter morons.

The staff at the ASA are for the most part, not lawyers, and are quite young and inexperienced. It's usually a largely rubber stamp process

Out of interest, have the ASA ever ruled against any ad coming from a major agency?

As I said before, I would be sceptical as they are an industry self-regulating body, so I would imagine they would be very reluctant to go against their own (especially if the agency is influential enough and pays their wages)

Anyone who followed the Wikipedia entry for the director of this ad, who still believes that there is nothing sexualised about the actions of this child please can you explain what you honestly see?

Where I see pouting into the camera, what do you see?

This Sky and Telegraph article capture the mouth pout quite well.

news.sky.com/story/john-lewis-pulls-potentially-misleading-home-insurance-advert-12446072

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/27/john-lewis-pulls-potentially-misleading-insurance-ad/

What do you see?

I see the empty eyes behind a social media ready pout. But what is the intent of that pout? What was this child supposed to be portraying?

Why is this boy adopting a strut, shoulders back emphasizing the chest in this way? I have limited experience with young boys as our house has been filled with young girls at this age. Do they usually strut with shoulders all the way back when doing a creative dance, like women have been told to do emphasize their chests?

What do you believe the move against the wall is about? Have you seen your child do this? If so, why did they do this?

In fact, the eyes of this boy are haunting. I took a screen shot from several places including the final flop on the couch, this boy looks very confused and rather pensive around the eyes the whole way through.

What are you all seeing that I am not seeing?

I have absolutely no idea why ‘joyful’ is being used so much. There is NOTHING in this boys eyes depicting ‘joy’ in any of it. It looks like he was directed to emulate moves and expressions he is not comfortable with.

As a marketing manager, I would not have approved this ad for the reason it was misleading, but also because this ad fails to fill the remit of ‘joy’ (this keeps being mentioned) and because this child’s dance routine is sexualised. Maybe too subtly for some, but as a brand manager, this would be crossing the line in what I wanted my brand to convey.

If as suggested, it was a boy in the same outfit dancing without any of the pouts, struts, dragging fingers down a balustrade, but simply dancing, looking like they were very happy and knocked things over etc. no problems. Go for it.

I don’t believe this to be the case.

Council noted that the child was seen knocking paints onto the floor and also throwing glitter in the air. They considered that the ad was intended to highlight the joyous feeling

So the person who wrote this would be fine if someone tipped tippex all over their desk - joyously.

They are idiots too for writing this stuff.

It looks like he was directed to emulate moves and expressions he is not comfortable with

This is an interesting point

It may be because I come from an alcohol marketing background and the connection with sex and alcohol has to be very carefully watched due to an extra layer of restriction in some countries.

I have absolutely no idea why ‘joyful’ is being used so much. There is NOTHING in this boys eyes depicting ‘joy’ in any of it. It looks like he was directed to emulate moves and expressions he is not comfortable with.

Yes, I’ve only watched it once but ‘joy’ wasn’t my overriding impression.

Defiant? That was my impression. ‘Go on, challenge me,’ sort of vibe. And when kids act out like that it’s usually from a place of anger/distress.

I didn’t get joyous from the direction.

They absolutely could have made the exact same ad and made it joyous, though, and fulfilled the actual brief of ‘accidental damage’.

So you’ve got to wonder at the choices in direction/creative vision that they didn’t.

The old JL board has mainly been dismantled afaik and has some younger members who want to uograde the image. Wokeblinded sounds a good description

It looks like he was directed to emulate moves and expressions he is not comfortable with

It would likely take the impartial professional opinion of a children clinical psychologist to ascertain the impact making the ad had on this boy (and others watching) before these organisations decide to take any concerns seriously.

I've just watched it again and actually it seems even worse.
Totally inappropriate, and there is NO WAY that is not sexualised movements.
Really, really horrible, especially the "looks" into the camera.
Ugh.

@mustlovegin

If it had been to raise awareness of an issue, it would have been successful

But that's the point, isn't it. Companies' ads should sell products, they should have nothing to do with 'raising awareness'. Leave that to lobby groups or politics. The problem is that activism is encroaching on the business world as agencies appear to be able to find time and time again clueless management with cash to burn

Except Insurance Managment are not allowed to be clueless. The golden rule is if it could happen it should be documented and resolved via an appropriate policy.

The ad has red flagged the management in the insurance operation with the Regulator who gives them a licence (permission) to sell insurance.

The FCA "brand awareness" is, we use rules and regulations to make sure you can trust this company's management. If the company takes your money they will comply with the rules to do what they promised in the sales pitch.

The FCA also strictly control their name/brand being used. Anything over "regulated by" "our regulatory authority is" would be treated as a claim that the FCA endorsed the message.

So companies never include "FCA said" statements in the body of text without being instructed to do so. And those messages are by default going to be sorry we broke the rules.

"Sorry we took your money and were not going to pay out.."

www.johnlewisfinance.com/insurance/home-insurance.html?originalSearchTerm=Home%20insurance

If staff were actively engaged using company funds (with/without management sign off) in a covert political campaign?
The FCA have rules about that too.
Companies need to have a written policy document and track their lobby decisions or political support and track who they deal with who have such links.
They usually included it in training around misuse of Company funds, Anti-Money Laundering, Politically Connected Persons, bribery and corruption etc.
Lobby groups or politics is a whole world of painful regulation where training starts by examining if it's appropriate to eat lunch someone else paid for.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that SolasAnla.

I'm not that well versed in the insurance world.

Lobby groups or politics is a whole world of painful regulation where training starts by examining if it's appropriate to eat lunch someone else paid for

Yes, I appreciate regulation is strict, prescriptive and thorough, as it should be, but it doesn't always seem to result in the desired outcomes in the real world, perhaps? Also lines and concepts are blurry nowadays. Not sure about what to make of all this

Oddly how Kuntz's wikipedia page omits the JL advert.

Odd not oddly

If staff were actively engaged using company funds (with/without management sign off) in a covert political campaign?

I wonder about majority shareholders too (maybe not JL, but other companies). What's their view on all of this? Do they agree with it or encourage it even it's unacceptable for the customers/general public?

I feel it's all very complex and intertwined but worth thinking about

@Clymene

I have had a reply from the ASA. They have acknowledged that the FCA considered the ad was misleading. They considered all the other complaints (these are not all things I said, this is the sum of criticisms) and rejected them all.

The ASA Council’s decision

1. Council considered that the purpose of the ad was to deliver a message of joy and, whilst it may appear to some that the child was being destructive, to illustrate that children sometimes get carried away with their play and that accidents can happen as a result of this. Whilst Council acknowledged complainants' concerns about children emulating the behaviour, they noted that Clearcast – the body responsible for pre-clearing TV ads – had applied restrictions on the ad to prevent it being broadcast around programmes commissioned for, principally directed at, or likely to appeal to children under 16. Whilst this did not necessarily mean the ads could not be shown around programming which might attract a wider, family audience, it ensured they were less likely to be seen by children watching alone without supervision. Therefore, given the scheduling restrictions and the overall message of the ad, Council concluded that the ad was unlikely to be seen as irresponsible.
2. Council noted that the ad featured a young boy who had been playing dress up and was seen wearing an oversized dress over his clothing along with a pair of heeled shoes. They also noted that the makeup on his face appeared to be messy and likely to have been applied by a child. Council therefore considered that the way the child was dressed and the use of makeup was unlikely to be seen as being sexualised, but considered that viewers were likely to have perceived the male character as confident and empowered, and to be having fun. Council considered that the ad made no specific reference to his sexual orientation or identified gender. They also considered that the movements and poses made by the child were part of his playful dancing, and it had not been presented in a way that was inappropriate or would be seen as sexualised. Council concluded, therefore, that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, or be seen as inappropriate or to cause harm.
3. Council acknowledged that both the female characters in the ad did not intervene when various items around the house were either damaged or knocked over, however they considered that their reactions would likely be seen as light hearted bemusement at the boy's dancing and attire rather than being seen as passive or scared of the boy's behaviour. Whilst the boy was shown to knock over what appears to be his sister's paints, he was not depicted as angry or violent, nor did the girl appear to be frightened, and Council considered that the ad was unlikely to suggest that he was bullying the girl. Council therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence on the basis that the ad was sexist, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, or suggestive of bullying or domestic abuse, or that it would be seen as condoning such behaviour.
4. Council noted that the child was seen knocking paints onto the floor and also throwing glitter in the air. They considered that the ad was intended to highlight the joyous feeling children often experience through play and that the very brief scenes in which any wasteful damage was caused were incidental to the overall message of the ad, and were largely accidental. Council considered that there was nothing in the ad that was likely to have been interpreted as a suggestion that unnecessary waste was acceptable behaviour, or that viewers should engage in behaviour prejudicial to the environment. Council therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to have broken the rules for the reasons suggested.

However, we have made the advertiser aware of the further issues that were brought to our attention in case they wish to take on-board the information provided when creating their ads in the future.

"Council" are just as idiotic as JL, then.

@LeaveYourHatOn

I've just watched it again and actually it seems even worse. Totally inappropriate, and there is NO WAY that is not sexualised movements. Really, really horrible, especially the "looks" into the camera. Ugh.

Yep, it's a horrible, sinister advert made by people and agencies to try and make the sexualization of children mainstream and normal..as soon as I saw it that's what I thought, I'm so so glad it's gone but I fear there will be others..

It makes sense now someone has posted info on director

He railroaded his personal sexual whatever on to it.

Yuk, hope future clients are more careful

@mustlovegin

If staff were actively engaged using company funds (with/without management sign off) in a covert political campaign?

I wonder about majority shareholders too (maybe not JL, but other companies). What's their view on all of this? Do they agree with it or encourage it even it's unacceptable for the customers/general public?

I feel it's all very complex and intertwined but worth thinking about

I know you said maybe not JL, but JL itself does not have shareholders. It's run as a partnership.

But even "majority shareholders" in most big firms wouldn't look twice at this sort of thing because they tend to be pension funds or investment trusts etc.