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They've withdrawn it.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

That is not pursed lips showing of lipstick. Really? For the entire 30 seconds? That is a pout. Copied from social media and models. And if you have not read the origins of the pout and its signaling, that is on you.

And yes, I did do some frame by frame and I took screenshot stills to make my analysis. Because it disturbed me.

The boy also displays no such joy as the JL team keep trying to depict.

Crack on though, I know I am not going to change your mind.

No you’re not. There is one pout at the start. The rest is dance. Boys are allowed to dance.

Children are encouraged to dress up in whatever gender clothing they like when we have independent play.

Who cares what kids dress up in.

Why is it appropriate for any child to walk around pouting because they have make up?

[quote Benjispruce5]@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet because of course not. I said I see far worse things not that I allow them. Children are encouraged to dress up in whatever gender clothing they like when we have independent play.[/quote]
Year 2 kids regularly deliberately trash the classroom, destroy other children's activities, smear paint on the walls? And you watch passively as the mother and daughter in the advert do?

This kid is older than Year 2 anyway and would know better. He is not a toddler. The dress is irrelevant, apart from the subtext of the ad which says that this behaviour is something to be celebrated because the boy is wearing a dress.

I have watched a decade of many, many dance school recitals with boys and girls. All streams of dance. I simply do not agree with you.

And you are also wrong in that The pout is not ‘just at the start’.

@Benjispruce5

There is no sexy dance move against a wall. I’d be more worried about you deducing that from innocent play(trashing stuff aside.)

And I am more worried that you simply are downplaying any possibility that this could be anything other than you say it is.

@Helleofabore

I have seen a viral of it being used as an ad for Durex condoms.

Yes. I sure the humour but it was wrong to relabel it with the original actors in the ad still. That made it even more explicitly sexualising this child.

Better would be to have an adult doing exactly the same for the Durex version. The internet now has used this boy for advertising condoms…

I don't think it was any kind official viral ad.

Well I seriously hope not!
Intellectual property and all that would mean that JL sold the film rights.

It was don't have children.
Look child acting as a destructive brat
This is why you need condoms.
It worked because the viral was cut to focus on the destruction elements.
It hits the right note of funny because it's true.

Now the ad ended with child throwing the glitter in the air "Cadburys flake" style. This underlines how the original imagery produced by people in the industry was interpreted by a fellow insider.

Where did I say year 2kids can do that? I said I see worse things. I mean things that go on in children’s lives that we really do need to worry about. A child dressing up and dancing is not one of them. It’s not sexual AT ALL. The trashing of course is wrong IN REAL LIFE!

No it was not official at all. But it is now living on the internet with direct connection to this ad.

I did get the meaning of the change and it did work on many levels, but it should not have been done using the child actor. That was irresponsible.

It’s not sexual AT ALL.

And people disagree with you on that.

@Benjispruce5

Where did I say year 2kids can do that? I said I see worse things. I mean things that go on in children’s lives that we really do need to worry about. A child dressing up and dancing is not one of them. It’s not sexual AT ALL. The trashing of course is wrong IN REAL LIFE!

You said

I defy any child playing with their mum’s makeup, not to pout! As for trailing fingertips, please!!!! Yes I do have children, now grown up and I work with children. Believe me, I see far worse on a daily basis I year 2!

I took from this to mean that you meant that the behaviour depicted in the advert (eg. Trailing fingertips) was normal. Maybe I misunderstood.

So do you think that the behaviour depicted in the advert is acceptable and something 'joyful' to be 'celebrated' or not?

I took from this to mean that you meant that the behaviour depicted in the advert (eg. Trailing fingertips) was normal. Maybe I misunderstood.

I understood it the same way.

@Helleofabore

No it was not official at all. But it is now living on the internet with direct connection to this ad.

I did get the meaning of the change and it did work on many levels, but it should not have been done using the child actor. That was irresponsible.

I agree using a child in an ad about sex products should never happen.

I am guessing (hoping) that whoever produced it never considered the child protection element.

Do you believe everything you see in adverts? Everyone knows insurers won’t cover for wilful destruction, or should do. It’s an exaggerated point being made in the ad just like Flash floor cleaner miraculously cleaning years of grime in one wipe.
If you knew me, you’d know I’m pretty strict so rest assured that I would t accept that wilful destruction….. in real life. The dressing up and dancing is fine by me though as I saw nothing worrying or sexual to my mind.

The boy in the ad is 9. Year 5.

No children of that age behave like this. There is nothing natural or joyful in this boy's play. It is deliberately provocative.

And @Benjispruce5 ads for insurance have to be honest. This ad isn't.

Benjispruce5

Is this addressed to me ’Do you believe everything you see in adverts?’

Did you read anything I posted? What do you think marketing communications is as a job role? Maybe I am missing something after 30 years.

If I was to look into JL insurance off the back of the ad , I would check the policy to see what is and isn’t covered. In that way, the ad is misleading and for that reason alone it’s wrong.
As I said at the start, I thought it was a JL interiors ad and I love that song anyway. My issue is with saying the boy was made to display sexual behaviour. I don’t see that at all.

You still haven’t explained why you think it normal that children start pouting and will dance around pouting after putting lipstick on?

@Benjispruce5

If I was to look into JL insurance off the back of the ad , I would check the policy to see what is and isn’t covered. In that way, the ad is misleading and for that reason alone it’s wrong. As I said at the start, I thought it was a JL interiors ad and I love that song anyway. My issue is with saying the boy was made to display sexual behaviour. I don’t see that at all.

Ah you would be wrong though. I called John Lewis and a woman told me that deliberate destruction - if it was done by children- was covered if you took out the additional accidental damage policy.

They have now clarified that this isn't the case. If even if their own staff have been confused by the ad, it's not a great ad is it?

Above all, JL seem to have forgotten that their target audience is the 'passive mum watching her house get trashed'.

Except she does not represent me. Or anyone on this thread.

That was their biggest mistake.

Do you believe everything you see in adverts? Everyone knows insurers won’t cover for wilful destruction, or should do.

Erm....the advert was pulled for being misleading.

Acting @Helleofabore.

I know!!!! @Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

Sure benji.

Who are they copying when they are ‘acting’? Specifically?

Children copy the adults around them so if his mum likes to dress in a glam way he may be copying that behaviour. If his mum is a mechanic, he may imitate her in overalls and wipe oil on his face.