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They've withdrawn it.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

Apart from the fact that the ad was totally misleading, the kid was not 'getting carried away with his performance' (performance of what?) and 'oblivious' to what he was doing, he deliberately trashed his sisters painting activity, little shit!

It was a brilliant example of male entitlement, even whilst wearing stereotypical female clothing - so a failure all round!

It was an ad hominem attack @Getyourarseofffthequattro. If you don't know what that means, it means you didn't attack the substance of my post, you attacked me for having an empty life (don't you have anything better to do?).

I mean I don't give a shiny shit what you think of me but have the grace to own it.

@Clymene

It was an ad hominem attack *@Getyourarseofffthequattro*. If you don't know what that means, it means you didn't attack the substance of my post, you attacked me for having an empty life (don't you have anything better to do?).

I mean I don't give a shiny shit what you think of me but have the grace to own it.

No need to be patronising.

@titchy

Apart from the fact that the ad was totally misleading, the kid was not 'getting carried away with his performance' (performance of what?) and 'oblivious' to what he was doing, he deliberately trashed his sisters painting activity, little shit!

It was a brilliant example of male entitlement, even whilst wearing stereotypical female clothing - so a failure all round!

@titchy - was coming on to say the same. Not the actor’s fault but he came across as a wee brat who didn’t give a shit about what he destroyed. The ad was wrong on so many levels but as they say …..all publicity is good publicity. I’d advise people to vote with their feet and swerve JL but sadly there will soon be no actual bricks and mortar stores left

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...

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Have you nothing better to do?

The ad was misleading.

It showed deliberate damage done by a child old enough to know better and advertised 'accidental damage' insurance - the implication being that anything the kid broke would be replaced.

There is no accidental damage insurance that will cover deliberately broken items without a police report and a crime number.

It is wrong to mislead with advertising.

It was pulled as misleading as to what it would cover, not because of the woke boy in a dress causing havoc.
Stupid ad.
They should stick to trad ads that they used to do well.

Getyourarseofffthequattro

You now feel patronised. After telling someone to, basically, get a life?

Grow up!

Good, it was a rubbish advert. I can't see any company advertising that they are paying out for that sort of damage staying solvent.

Time to concentrate on good products and good customer service.

The ad has been withdrawn - good.

It has been withdrawn for the issue of miss-selling insurance.

I wish it had been withdrawn for depicting a male dressed in female parody costume trashing the actual female's artwork and his mother's house, just cos he "feel like it". It is a superb illustration of male entitlement, all cutely dressed up in women's clothing.

But for the time being I'm just pleased it has gone.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

I complained about the advert and trust me, you've spent longer on this thread than it took to do so, have you nothing better to do?

@Thataintright

Getyourarseofffthequattro

You now feel patronised. After telling someone to, basically, get a life?

Grow up!

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

I agree they shouldn't put out misleading adverts, although I mean surely you read the small print anyway. I thought it was a nice advert in a world full of miserable shit.

But clearly I am in the minority and apparently means it's okay to personally attack me.

I'm one of the very few that does in fact read all the small print on any insurance policy I have. I know for certain that most dont bother. They are all similar and none would cover the deliberate damage portrayed in that advert.

Putting out misleading adverts is actually prohibited in most countries. For good reasons. So I'm glad OP and many others including me put in complaints.

JL made an ad that shows when an 'assigned at birth as male' person dresses up in non boy clothes & slaps on womanface, they think it's acceptable to act like a spoilt little brat of a diva & destroy everything that belongs to women & girls with a scowling pout & deliberate intent.

I just thought it was JLs attempt to be inclusive.

I've noticed nobody is prepared to pay for the damage done to women & girls by the opposite sex though so why anyone was surprised it wouldn't be covered by their insurance is beyond me.

Thank you OP for following up on it . I hated the advert, but even more angry that this press release seems to blame the actor . They are mis - judging us at every turn .

Shit advert, shit brand.
Glad it’s gone.

i would imagine JL is rubbing its hands in glee at the amount of attention this ad has generated

I think they're 'personalising' the actor to make the people complaining look like transphobic meanies

That's probably the agency talking (again) and very unfair on the actor.

The gaslighting does no longer wash but the penny hasn't dropped

JL needs to regain control

I think they're trying to pin the wanton destruction on the child actor getting swept away in his performance. Bollocks, he was directed and the whole 'story' of the advert hinged on this deliberate damage. Glad it's been pulled. Amazing song though, and hope the little boy isn't too sad his ad has been pulled.

I also don’t like the way they brought 'a young actor' into their message. It feels wrong for the poor kid

Their marketing team messed up, they got people to do what they asked them to do. Nothing to do with the people in the ad

@TirednWorried

i would imagine JL is rubbing its hands in glee at the amount of attention this ad has generated

I don’t know why people always say this. Attention yes, but I’ve seen a lot of people on here and elsewhere outright state that they will never shop in JL again after that specific advert. Can’t imagine it works the other way and people that didn’t shop there before will now flock to it just to support the ad.

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.

It feels wrong for the poor kid

The agency shouldn't use a child as an escape goat. Words fail me

The agency shouldn't use a child as an escape goat.