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They've withdrawn it.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

I didn’t complain about the ad but is there a way to complain about their response?

So glad it's been pulled, best news ever!

@mustlovegin

It feels wrong for the poor kid

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

Escape goat

Sorry but that made me smile.

Blaming the child actor in this way is really scraping the barrel, even for John Lewis.

For those that haven't seen it.

Hope this works...

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/john-lewis-tv-advert-featuring-25314010

I posted this because a few people I know have actually not seen this ad yet!

Read that JL are having to bring in 'schools' for staff to improve the service. How the mighty are falling.

@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.

Nope. Not disingenuous. I didn't like the ad for the reasons I said. The dress was neither here nor there ( other than it being an excuse for trashing his mother's bedroom)

No need to be patronising. hmm

Why is it people who dish it out can’t take it? 🤣

You made a personal attack on the OP, @Getyourarseofffthequattro . Completely unnecessary.

P.s. glad the ad got banned.

@M4J4

No need to be patronising. hmm

Why is it people who dish it out can’t take it? 🤣

You made a personal attack on the OP, @Getyourarseofffthequattro . Completely unnecessary.

P.s. glad the ad got banned.

No, I didn't.

Ok, can you explain how it wasn’t a personal attack, @Getyourarseofffthequattro ?

@Clymene
Nope. Not disingenuous. I didn't like the ad for the reasons I said. The dress was neither here nor there ( other than it being an excuse for trashing his mother's bedroom)

It may not have been for you OP, but there was that reasoning for some people disliking the ad and it is false to claim there wasn’t.

@M4J4

Ok, can you explain how it wasn’t a personal attack, *@Getyourarseofffthequattro* ?

Ask @mnhq . Same way insinuating someone is stupid isn't a personal attack, apparently.

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.

I agree @SoniaFouler. "All publicity is good publicity" is a tired cliche - surely, JL's brand is that they provide quality, reliable service (whether it's true or not, I'd say that's their image). Having an ad say we'll pay out for all your accidents gives that same reassurance - which is completely shattered (ho, ho) if you then have to put out a statement that deliberate breakages like this wouldn't be covered.

And I don't suppose the insurance company they partnered with are going to be too happy...

Ask @mnhq . Same way insinuating someone is stupid isn't a personal attack, apparently.

You’re the one saying it wasn’t 🤷🏻‍♀️

But it’s clear you can’t explain it.

@M4J4

Ask @mnhq . Same way insinuating someone is stupid isn't a personal attack, apparently.

You’re the one saying it wasn’t 🤷🏻‍♀️

But it’s clear you can’t explain it.

Well according to the rules, it wasn't. What more explanation do you need?

[quote SoniaFouler]@Clymene
Nope. Not disingenuous. I didn't like the ad for the reasons I said. The dress was neither here nor there ( other than it being an excuse for trashing his mother's bedroom)

It may not have been for you OP, but there was that reasoning for some people disliking the ad and it is false to claim there wasn’t.[/quote]
Yes, some. I'm not disagreeing with that. But that isn't what @Hugoslavia said.

"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,"

No, I reject that.

Good, it was a pile of shite for many reasons.

@Wife2b

Fun sponge

...?

"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,"

I disagree. The least problematic part was the dress.

It was the wilful destruction by the boy and passive females that annoyed me

It’s fantastic news, those of us who complained are vindicated as it won’t be shown again, but I notice no apologies for the content itself.

@LittleDandelionClock

I hated the ad too - for several reasons.

I wonder what the REAL reason was for them pulling the ad?

I thought that, they're hiding behind the "misleading" narrative..

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

Brilliant! Ha ha what total melts.

I loved it 😄