[SoulBoy]

He may be a smug git but Martin Lewis knows what he is talking about.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insur ... insurance/

As I understand it, the payouts are poor compared to normal life insurance and if you miss one payment you've done your dough.

If you are a heavy smoker, who would be heavily penalised by a policy that required a medical, who expects to live another 2 to 10 years it might be worth a punt, especially if there is a Parker pen or attractive carriage clock-shaped hole in your life.

[Abernathy]

Ahh, yes, I see it now. Should be obvious, but isn't. That's why they're all pushing these feckin money makers.

[Abernathy]

I think I've just seen the first Crimbo TV ad.

For Currys. Victorian Christmas scenes, Scrooge and all that, urchins, etc. Except they've got headphones, Xboxes, flat screen tellies,etc.

November 2. I'm just cleaning up the vomit now.

[Boiler]

With the adoption of bloody Halloween as a thing over here, that doesn't surprise me one iota. Glad I don't watch commercial telly, I'd be fuming by now.

[bluebellnutter]

Advert break on radio on drive home tonight as follows. See if you can spot the odd one out;

Tesco Mobile - Christmas advert
Local food shop chain - "Stock up on your bonfire night treats"
Sofa company - "Delivered in time for Christmas"
Local shopping centre - "Pop in and sort out your summer wardrobe"
Local racecourse - "Come to bonfire night"

[Kreuzberger]

I do rather like this Iceland commercial but I don't understand how it could have been "banned".

No one, no one, goes to all the expense of making any commercial without script clearance beforehand, less still one with the production values of this.

It is conceivable, I suppose, that they deviated from the approved script. However, these things can be easily and relatively cheaply fixed if you get caught trying to pull a fast one when the final pre-airdate screening takes place. In fact, any half-decent Account Director budgets for that eventuality.

It's all a mite confusing - unless my decade out of the business is showing and things are done very differently these days.

[Abernathy]

You're of course correct. It was never "banned". The tabloids love to talk about things being banned, mostly things that haven't been.

But Aldi's Xmas ads featuring Kevin the Carrot. I mean what the actual fuck are these about?

[The Red Arrow]

I was reminded of 'Sausage Party', then it went a bit 'Italian Job'. Bottom line, it didn't make me want to buy carrots.

[Kreuzberger]

Even Iceland are saying quite unequivocally that the commercial has been banned.

Now, I'm not suggesting that a bunch of tree-hugging, lefty remoaners (like me) are going to be hoodwinked in to buying hunners of tonnes of (extruded) "chicken" nuggets from a notorious ZHC employer which last year copped one of the largest ever fines for a health and safety breach, and well, y'know, horses.

[MisterMuncher]

I used to go to Iceland to see exactly how fucking mad their ready meals were. It was across the road from the pub I went to for after work pints, and that's when the old Pot Noodle horn would strike. Chicken Tikka Lasagne was a highlight.

There isn't one for miles since I moved, though. Can't say I miss it.

[Samanfur]

I've been taking a look at the Broadcast Code of Advertising Practice (it's available for download here - the section on politics is Section 7).

I can see, given the wording on influencing policy, why that particular advert would fall foul of it. But it seems outmoded that conservation falls under that remit.

[Kreuzberger]

It is possible, I suppose, that the script was bombed and the client thought that there was enough PR mileage in it to create momentum for the decision to be reversed. Public and press outcry, and all that.

I have seen some fast-and-loose stunts but I can't think of anything on this scale, i.e. having a ban overturned.

Some background. I also had plenty of run-ins with the BACC (the forerunner to Clearcast and where my old nemesis is still a Copy Group Controller), and whilst they could be dreadfully pedantic, they were ultimately pragmatic and accommodating, even though they enjoy a near-Solomonic status. Their decisions cannot be challenged or taken to a higher body or, if deemed necessary, the courts. As far as I remember, their decisions are "advisory" and the contractors choose to act upon that advice and do so without fail. That underpins what we all know is a less than perfect system.

Add to that, no court in the land can compel a media-owner to run any particular client or organisation's copy. Furthermore, the T's & C's on every rate-card provide for each media owner to reject copy at their discretion. These are the terms of contract and are binding.

If this supposition it correct and the client is gambling on the court of public opinion, this could set a worrying precedent. Alter all, Clearcast is a lonely backstop against the torrent of misleading and dangerous drivel that would otherwise get through. Undermine them and you are on a one-way ticket to, for example, Guinness advertising the Viagran properties of their gloop in Nigeria.

Moreover, if the commercial does finally get clearance, the TV contractors are going to have an absolute field day with the rates. I wouldn't want to be presenting that post-campaign Buying Report. Iceland are going to be taken right up the Ronson. Guinness or no.

As an aside, it would be interesting to know whether any airtime was actually booked - especially as we are already some four weeks past advanced booking (AB) deadlines for December 2018 and November airtime budget would have need to be laid down in the first week of September.

I appreciate that I haven't really added much light. Sorry for that. But, as the thread suggests, this is How Advertising Works.

[spoonman]

I do rather like this Iceland commercial but I don't understand how it could have been "banned".

No one, no one, goes to all the expense of making any commercial without script clearance beforehand, less still one with the production values of this.

It is conceivable, I suppose, that they deviated from the approved script. However, these things can be easily and relatively cheaply fixed if you get caught trying to pull a fast one when the final pre-airdate screening takes place. In fact, any half-decent Account Director budgets for that eventuality.

It's all a mite confusing - unless my decade out of the business is showing and things are done very differently these days.

Maybe Iceland here are trying to create a "Streisand effect" incident in the hope that it works to their advantage? I know that in the US there have been a few cases where adverts intended to be shown during the Superbowl were deliberately made either as risqué or controversial, just about enough over the edge that they knew that the network showing the game would refuse to show it, media outlets pick up stories of "banned" Superbowl adverts and consequently people get curious, want to see it and can usually do so online & the product gets additional free publicity. PETA and GoDaddy are two past offenders that spring to mind.

[cycloon]

I've seen a petition to unban it. Mission accomplished i'd say.

[mr angry manchester]

I think the US banned adverts were for Miller Lite