John Lewis and it’s ‘gender relaxed’ ad

[SouthernFashionista]

Curious to hear thoughts on the new ad from John Lewis. It strikes me as sinister. Why does a small child have to send out a message of LGBTQ equality? Why is he acting like a drag queen.

It's the implication that a male being destructive and aggressive including directly towards females, is something positive and joyful and to be 'celebrated', presumably just because that male is wearing a dress...

It's just a total ad for patriarchy really isn't it?! What were JL thinking?

I must say I'm starting to come to the view that this ad is a loteasiee to read as satire than anything else.

Is there a secret GC activist at the agency, with a hidden foldee on their computer labelled "queering the pitch." ? Are we going to get ads featuring a teal car and a pink car hurtling round a park disrupting a women's rounders game? Or a music atreaming service ad featuring a man putting on a teal and pink gown and singing the soprano lead in an opera, through an autotune?

The child is also far too old for this to be funny anyway, it would have been slightly better with a toddler, but this kid is like 8 or 9 years old!

The age is, again, a deliberate choice. You could not get even a whiff of a toddler pouting and strutting and back to the wall 'fainting' through. You should not be getting any of it through, but it has been approved and here it is.

Teal just isn't a colour that I have seen in paint palette sets for kids. It is striking once you see it. It makes me very suspect that every choice here is deliberate and signalling loudly (except for environmental impact, but hey, if you are a 'diva' there is no need to think of that is there. I mean glitter is just one thing, the destruction of so much else there too, that are non-recyclable).

I also suspect that this ad was not tested properly or even run past a diverse group of staff for feedback. I think this ad was nurtured through its steps before release ie. people were either too worried about giving honest feedback or only the 'right' people were asked for feedback.

Another thing I suspect, is that the insurance arm may fall under a different corporate structure and may not have been even approved by general JL head office.

Well I hope people consider whether to continue shopping there and don't just criticise the ad but do nothing more.

A lot easier. A hidden folder. Music streaming. Apologies for typing!

It's also puts GNC kids in a bad light, portraying them as spoilt little shits!

I also suspect that this ad was not tested properly or even run past a diverse group of staff for feedback

Agree. If they had I think at least one person would have pointed out the problem with implying that they will insure against deliberate damage.

@MamsellMarie

Well I hope people consider whether to continue shopping there and don't just criticise the ad but do nothing more.

Do me a favour, i bloody love JL. They’re going to have to do a lot more than put out a stupid ad that irks me to get me to stop shopping there

It is a bloody stupid ad though

Little fucker. I hope that's on after the watershed. Don't want kids copying that!

Sexist drivel - little boy messes stuff up and craps up sister’s paints and throws them on the carpet while sister and mum (?) watch passively.

The amount of idiots who think this is ‘breaking gender stereotypes’ simply because he’s wearing a dress is shocking. Just shows that they’re secretly very conservative IMO.

I hope the ASA get a load of complaints. I also don’t like the whiff of male aggression towards his sister. I know it might not be the intent, but it made me feel uncomfortable.

I think they are trying to tap into an insight around being able to be relaxed about kids being kids.

Persil used the same insight for years with their 'dirt is good' campaign.

I imagine post pandemic there have been lots of parents trying to let kids have fun in lockdown and having to put up with the mess and destruction. I remember a long and boring January where we frequently trashed the house to entertain bored small kids.

I think the sex of the kid is irrelevant and could easily be swapped.

I think the sex of the kid is irrelevant and could easily be swapped. then why wasn't it

I think I'll insure with JL and smear lipstick over my well passed its sell by date stair carpet. ......... might have a new one by Xmas!!

This is the ad from 2015 that was very similar.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=YqgoUWPx4eE

They've just gone a step beyond to show a) actual destruction and b) the benefit of the insurance being you can relax and 'let life happen' knowing you're covered.

I don't work for JL by the way 😂

@Coffeey

I think the sex of the kid is irrelevant and could easily be swapped. then why wasn't it

It was. In 2015 it was a girl...

The amount of idiots who think this is ‘breaking gender stereotypes’ simply because he’s wearing a dress is shocking. Just shows that they’re secretly very conservative IMO.

Yes, it just reinforces the idea of boys being aggressors, being allowed to 'express themselves' by trashing other people's stuff, whilst the females have to just accept it and most likely pick up the pieces afterwards.

'Breaking gender stereotypes' my arse.

It was. In 2015 it was a girl...

In 2015, the girl accidentally knocked some papers off the table and nearly tipped over a vase while she was so engrossed in her dancing.

She didn't deliberately trash her parents house and aggressively ruin her brothers activity that he was quietly and happily getting on with at the time, then proceed to smear her face with paint while strutting towards the camera.

My guess is in 2015 people didn't realise why an insurance ad had a little girl dancing so the market research said 'make the link to insurance more obvious' so they upped the anti on the destruction.

Like I said before everyone's lockdown experience probably helped in this.

I think its adland trying to do a 2.0 of a winning ad. Nowt to do with the trans issue and at worst a bit of unconscious bias at play.

the benefit of the insurance being you can relax and 'let life happen' knowing you're covered

1. no insurance would cover you for what that little shit is doing

2. being insured is not an excuse to let your children behave like little shits

@ThinkAboutItTomorrow

I think they are trying to tap into an insight around being able to be relaxed about kids being kids.

Persil used the same insight for years with their 'dirt is good' campaign.

I imagine post pandemic there have been lots of parents trying to let kids have fun in lockdown and having to put up with the mess and destruction. I remember a long and boring January where we frequently trashed the house to entertain bored small kids.

I think the sex of the kid is irrelevant and could easily be swapped.

"kids being kids" doesn't involve letting them run amok through the house. That isn't them being 'spirited'' or 'expressing themselves' it's being a badly behaved child.

The Persil ad is no where the same, that message is if they get dirty it washes out with Persil.

You are probably in a distinct minority who let children trash and cause destruction to the house, most of us muddled through without having to do that.

The ballerina advert was very different.

I'm not saying it's a great ad, just that it's not a huge trans capture

I imagine post pandemic there have been lots of parents trying to let kids have fun in lockdown and having to put up with the mess and destruction. I remember a long and boring January where we frequently trashed the house to entertain bored small kids.

What, you tipped your kids paints all over the floor whilst they were happily painting, chucked your shoes at the light fittings and stood on the dining room table chucking glitter everywhere?

My house was a complete mess in most of lockdown, but not because I had let my spoilt brat of a son deliberately and aggressively trash it because he was 'expressing himself' or whatever horseshit the explanation is supposed to be.

And anyway, as others have pointed out, JL insurance wouldn't cover this sort of wilful damage, so the ad is pointless anyway.

The 2015 advert doesn't show the girl deliberately causing damage. This one the boy has for a start presumably unstuffed a pillow, and can be seen kicking his shoes off at the lamps and deliberately tipping paint on the carpet.

i've had another look at the ad - teal and pink clothes in the opening shot too

also, i know it's already been covered but - bowls of glitter? WTF?

Just seen it. No one here is exaggerating.

Depicts a gender non conforming boy as an angry, destructive, troubled brat - facial expressions hardly joyful.

Destroys the house around him - the two females in the house look scared and frozen to the spot. Intentionally destroys the girl child's activity. Wipes the colours of a well known political movement on face. Several very inappropriately sexualised actions for a young child.

Family in urgent need of intervention and help.

This does LGBT+ kids no favours at all.