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They've withdrawn it.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

they tend to be pension funds or investment trusts

Yes, and who's managing these? Certainly there's a wide variety of 'majority shareholders', and some of them may be oblivious to what's going on and just focus on the bottom line, but certainly food for thought

Why would the Council's ruling be confidential @ColinTheKoala?

That is an excellent point about joy Hellofabore. He is most definitely not joyous. Defiant, provocative, yes. Not joyous.

@mustlovegin

they tend to be pension funds or investment trusts

Yes, and who's managing these? Certainly there's a wide variety of 'majority shareholders', and some of them may be oblivious to what's going on and just focus on the bottom line, but certainly food for thought

Pension funds and fund managers manage pensions and funds. Not sure I understand your question, or point.

They do look at how companies behave, but not really to this level of detail. They will ask for returns on ESG factors, and this ad would have been shown as a massive plus for the S if they went to this level of detail, which they don't really.

I honestly think if people are telling themselves that this ad is just a 'joyous explosion of creativity', they are actually either not watching it on a big screen where they can actually see this boy's eyes, or they are determined to think people are, what was it, small minded, and that they are the cool kids, or, I really am missing something that they are seeing and I am not.

And I am very happy to be told that I am wrong here, and told what other people are seeing because I am very aware that so much is open to interpretation.

I am not prepared to be shamed though by my interpretation because somebody thinks it is a 'nice ad' and they think that I am 'not nice' or that I am 'small minded'. I, like others, am looking at it under a professional lens and it simply does not work the way I am being told by press releases and official sources.

It also means that I have picked up on the other cues that are in the ad that indicate a degree of political signalling that I believe is happening. And knowing how marketing departments work, it is also quite likely that whoever signed off on the ad also remains unaware of the signalling. But once you see it, it is hard to miss.

Pension funds and fund managers manage pensions and funds. Not sure I understand your question, or point

I was just thinking more broadly about the fact that there are organisations managing those pension funds, which have their own governance, decision making structures and (potentially?) vested interests, ultimately signing off on the direction the companies they invest in are taking.

I'm left wondering if there was this much concern over the not that dissimilar 'tiny dancer' John Lewis ad in 2015. Wasn't aware of that particular ad being withdrawn at all, but maybe I missed that whole issue completely.

@Rookie93

I'm left wondering if there was this much concern over the not that dissimilar 'tiny dancer' John Lewis ad in 2015. Wasn't aware of that particular ad being withdrawn at all, but maybe I missed that whole issue completely.

For the millionth time...

Firstly, the Tiny Dancer advert did not mislead the public. The girl did not actually break anything in that ad, the implication was that when kids are around, sometimes things might get accidentally broken. The boy in this advert deliberately caused damage that would not be covered by the insurance (eg. Drawing on the walls, tipping paint on the carpet, throwing a brolly at a vase etc).

Secondly, the little girl was not wilfully causing any damage to the things around her. She literally was just dancing and in her getting carried away with that, did not notice that she was nearly knocking stuff over, pulling on the curtains etc. The boy in this advert (who is way old enough to know better) deliberately kicked his shoes at the light fittings, smeared paint on the kitchen cupboards, wrecked his sisters painting activity by tipping her paints all over the floor after staring right at her in a 'I'm about to fuck your shit up' way.

They aren't really comparable are they?

@Rookie93

I'm left wondering if there was this much concern over the not that dissimilar 'tiny dancer' John Lewis ad in 2015. Wasn't aware of that particular ad being withdrawn at all, but maybe I missed that whole issue completely.

But they weren't the same were they. One was a young child dancing around the house and having near misses, the other was a child wilfully breaking and destroying stuff for the sake of it. If in the new advert he had been having near misses when playing, dancing, singing or whatever else then no one would be arsed.

Was the little girl in the old advert strutting and pouting at the camera?

@Rookie93

I'm left wondering if there was this much concern over the not that dissimilar 'tiny dancer' John Lewis ad in 2015. Wasn't aware of that particular ad being withdrawn at all, but maybe I missed that whole issue completely.

Have you actually viewed these two ads side by side?

They are so different. If you do, please let us know what your thoughts are. I'd be very interested in your view of the differences.

@mustlovegin

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

I am no expert on the regulations either just dipped my toes in the pool.

Regulation will always have an element of catch up to fill a workaround that someone has taken advantage of. That's basic human nature.

"Too big to fail" was proven wrong as the ripple effect of poor regulation and poor management of '00 financial products is still being paid for today.

When "big" regulation is applied to the individual workers choices the desired outcome won't always be achieved or even achievable (good idea but computer said no)

Given an abundance of choice people first do business (make money) with people they like (who like them back).
Or if they don't like them making enough money can overcome the dislike.
If they like someone but loose money that's charity not business.
Then there are those who will do anything for money.

The rules are so everyone to understand what business and business practices is allowed.

I agree lines and concepts are blurry nowadays. Which is why the ad is ran into problems.

Management would have examined that ad every way possible before issuing their statement

Along with the complaints received because complaints handling is also regulated.

"The ‘Let Life Happen’ John Lewis home insurance advert was created to show a joyful depiction of a young actor getting carried away with his performance, oblivious of the unintentional consequences of his actions"

unintentional
The character was not depicting unintentional acts rather they were deliberate acts.The acts were not covered.

John Lewis's new home contents insurance product and only covers accidental (not deliberate) damage.

So what else can be a problem?

joyful
He is a little too old to be a "young boy" who is unaware of the sexual nature of some of the dance moves.
Is it usual for a male child of his age to use the overt specific sexual suggestive elements as part of a performance?
Is it even appropriate performance to have a child of that age do that at all?

Seriousy bad PR there.

joyful oblivious unintentional
As pointed out is it joyful, oblivious, unintentional destruction of the sisters paint?
if the acts were deliberate was the sister being bullied?

Seriously bad PR there too.

actor
If there was internal concern over the ad being deemed a political statement that may partially explain why the word "actor" is used rather than child or boy.

He is a little too young to be a "teenager ".
He is a little too old to be a "young child" rather than just "a child".
He is a little too old to be a "young boy" just playing dressing up.

Conclusion
He's not dressed in female clothing because he a transgender male it's a "regular boy" performance.

I think the primary reason was it stops them getting pulled into an unwinable PR war.

But the way the FCA can investigate the political element is by an examination of the individual employees actions and communication.

A Nuremberg defence
In any investigation (internal or by the FCA) personal responsibility is expected.
Failing to follow the rules is a personal choice.
Failing to follow the rules because management said not to or fail to whistleblow on people not following the rules can have real life personal consequences.
Note the company has to have a policy and a way to make a protected disclosure.

Investigations are expensive pulling records together, high level management time etc and always carries a risk that the FCA would decide there was merit to it being a political statement and/or find additional problems which have to be reported.

The ad is like a stone dropped in the regulation pool the ripple effect for JL will not be cheap.

If in the new advert he had been having near misses when playing, dancing, singing or whatever else then no one would be arsed

Pretty much covers it.

It's a terrible advert, and I'm glad it's been cancelled.

@AlfonsoTheUnrepetant

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

That part isn’t really that odd. Wikipedia is edited and amended by anyone, it’s not an official thing. If you or I want to include this JL credit right now, we could. It’s just that nobody has bothered to do it yet.

I know how Wikipedia works, thank you. I think it's interesting that the now-notorious commercial does not appear on Kuntz's page.

@AlfonsoTheUnrepetant

I know how Wikipedia works, thank you. I think it's interesting that the now-notorious commercial does not appear on Kuntz's page.

Well if you know how it works why is it odd? It says it hasn’t been edited for the last 12 months.

@Clymene

Why would the Council's ruling be confidential *@ColinTheKoala*?

That is an excellent point about joy Hellofabore. He is most definitely not joyous. Defiant, provocative, yes. Not joyous.

They are usually embargoed until they appear on the website. They publish the rulings every Wednesday - the more interesting ones get picked up by the media and sometimes get mentioned on Radio 4 as I am waking up

And no, I don't think he's joyous either.

JL got into trouble over Edgar the excitable dragon too (I really loved that ad): www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2019/nov/18/excitable-edgar-john-lewis-under-fire-from-authors

[quote ColinTheKoala]JL got into trouble over Edgar the excitable dragon too (I really loved that ad): www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2019/nov/18/excitable-edgar-john-lewis-under-fire-from-authors[/quote]
Some of those complaints seem a little tenuous, an author accusing the excitable dragon of being plagiarised because she wrote a book about a unicorn and this advert “is also about a mythical creature who unwittingly alienated others by their behaviour before managing to control it.” Mischievous misunderstood animal turned loveable friend isn’t groundbreakingly original.

But the way the FCA can investigate the political element is by an examination of the individual employees actions and communication

I think it's very tricky nowadays, and this ad is a great example.

The statement that an organisation supports inclusivity is rather innocuous. Most companies, customers and regulators would view it as a positive thing to do (ethically and business wise) Now, at what point does inclusivity morph into something else in a way that affiliates the company more closely politically to one Party and not the other?

@mustlovegin

Ok so not in anyway an expert in this area. But it's all about knowing the rules, writing a policy to explain how the company apply the rules and sticking to it. Management ok's the policy and any changes so management controls the business.

On any decisions the management starts the process by writing a policy "organisation supports X action we comply with the following regulation so the rules around this are as follows ..."

"Feeding the poor" is "inclusion" yet the policy has to have rules who, what, where, when, why include/exclude. If direct aid can we give free baby milk, should we include pork etc. If giving to an organisation how do we pick the "right one" etc.

Lobbying is "easier", its actively trying to change a specific law e.g. changing the Gender Recognition Act.

JLPartners (JLP) do up a policy which covers any type of lobbying across any of their business.
JL Insurance (JLI)* company policy will including the extra FCA rules.

(*It looks as if the house insurance is sold on behalf of Covea Insurance plc so who did what may be a problem)

On the allowed or not question the JLI policy has to have a global an instruction if X is not covered in the policy to refer action X upwards to Board level.
If the JLI Board don't know if action X is authorised by the FCA rules but would otherwise be legal they don't do X.

Assuming it's legal for JLP and JLI to fund a direct campaign.

JLI write a policy to comply with the FCA rules and make a public announcement of the decision.
They hire people who manage the process. These employees properly track what's going on and report go to the Board level who retain control of what is going on.

Assuming it's not legal for JLI to fund a direct campaign.

The 'Oh shit' scenario would be the inclusion team is part of JLP don't understand the FCA rules. They decide on a global approached to run a campaign "Life Happens" to have the GRA changed. The ad policy is changed to having only transgender lead characters or transgender actors and always use approved trans colours as often as possible in every scene but no reason is given.
JLI management realise their staff failed to do a basic business control check by asking why has the new rule had been introduced into the policy and is that rule change allowed approved by the JLI rules.

The 'nightmare' scenario would be the inclusion team were JLI staff and understood the FCA rules and wrote a new policy anyway without getting management approval.

The same process on having a clear written policy for what is or is not insured (paint on carpet is a contract exclusion is a basic business check) should have stopped JL from filming things they don't cover.

"Too big to fail" was proven wrong as the ripple effect of poor regulation and poor management of '00 financial products is still being paid for today.

Nobody has said there is anything risky about the product itself, just that the advert was misleading. John Lewis essentially lend their brand to an insurance company. They don’t design the product itself.

I think it’s fair to say that the problem was caused by stupid advertising, not a deliberate intent to mislead by whichever company manages the insurance.

@merrymouse

"Too big to fail" was proven wrong as the ripple effect of poor regulation and poor management of '00 financial products is still being paid for today.

Nobody has said there is anything risky about the product itself, just that the advert was misleading. John Lewis essentially lend their brand to an insurance company. They don’t design the product itself.

I think it’s fair to say that the problem was caused by stupid advertising, not a deliberate intent to mislead by whichever company manages the insurance.

Well put.

@merrymouse

"Too big to fail" was proven wrong as the ripple effect of poor regulation and poor management of '00 financial products is still being paid for today.

Nobody has said there is anything risky about the product itself, just that the advert was misleading. John Lewis essentially lend their brand to an insurance company. They don’t design the product itself.

I think it’s fair to say that the problem was caused by stupid advertising, not a deliberate intent to mislead by whichever company manages the insurance.

The product as advertised failed because the product never existed to begin with.

That's why the FCA stepped in.

Break down the JL statement.

^The ‘Let Life Happen’ John Lewis home insurance advert
showed a joyful depiction of a young actor deliberately causing damage to household contents^

JL would like to clarify that deliberate damage is never covered under our product.

JL would like to clarify that accidental damage is not covered under the standard product either.

JL would like to clarify that we have a different product which covers accidental damage.

The risk of product failure to the "customer" claiming for that paint damaged rug is 100%

JL did not lend their brand they decided to earn money off customers by selling a product which is highly regulated.

Basic regulation for this product is seller can not mislead the buyer by making claims about the product which are not true.

The company which manages the insurance advertising is JL.
JL applied to be authorised and agreed to follow the regulation in exchange for opportunity to earning money.

It's fair to say that JL failed manage their sales pitch and opted for a "stupid ad" rather that "is the ad making a false claim about what the product covers"

JL have a legal obligation to prevent stupid from happening by fact check the sales pitch against the regulation written to prevent producing sales pitch for a product that never existed or making false claims about an actual product.

JL did not lend their brand they decided to earn money off customers by selling a product which is highly regulated.

John Lewis Finance is trading names of John Lewis plc which sells insurance products from other companies (e.g. in this case Covea) and also acts as a credit broker for John Lewis Financial Services Limited which is a subsidiary of HSBC that uses the John Lewis name under license from the John Lewis Partnership.

John Lewis were mis-selling insurance (because apparently they are stupid? they still seem unable to tell the difference between accidental and deliberate damage?), but they aren't the insurance company itself.

The point I am making is that I don't think that the FCA would care much if John Lewis stopped selling financial services tomorrow. It would be completely different if Covea or HSBC went under.

What I don't know is whether anyone from Covea had to sign off the advert. You would have thought yes, so maybe there is a bigger problem.