Oh dear. Here we go again. If you haven’t yet laid eyes on the latest ad for Club Orange, the product of a brainstorm which presumably went something like “huh huh boobies” then you’re in for an anti-treat. Eyeroll at the ready.
One of the 2010 Hunky Dory ads, which were later withdrawn
The immediate comparison is with the Hunky Dory fiasco from a while back, which was doubly offensive; first to women in general, and also to sportswomen. We’ve seen this thing over and over again, and here comes another one. Now we’re back to square one, an ad selling a soft drink that involves innuendo that a seven-year-old would probably find a bit cringey.
Although men are made out to be complete simpletons in lots of TV advertising – namely things about cleaning, cooking or minding kids, which is just as much an irritant to women as it is to men – considering gender role responsibilities are being assigned and assumed of both sexes in those kinds of ads, women have always bore the brunt of offense in advertising. No amount of guys whinging “men are objectified too” because there’s an ass shot in a Lacoste commercial can even begin to reach the dizzy heights of how women are sexualized in advertising. I’m sure there would be wide societal questions asked if all of a sudden every product aimed at women (and a soft drink isn’t even a gendered product!) featured endless shots of bulging crotches. It only happens once in a while; a bloke from Sex & The City flogging Aero Bubbles, or a Diet Coke ‘hunk’.
There are two kinds of ads in the demeaning women category. They are the ones that simply scream ‘sex sells’, ye olde advertising philosophy of putting hot people wearing less clothes than normal to push a product. It’s the photocall code and the oldest, least imaginative trick in the book. And unfortunately, of course, it’s to be expected. Pictures of Georgia Salpa in a bikini end up on photodesks and they’ll go in most newspapers. It’s a simple, if mind-numbing equation. There are the cosmetic ads that have beautiful models or celebrities faffing around whipping their hair. They make sense. Consumers probably wouldn’t buy a product that didn’t feature someone aspirational or glamourous. In an era where most music videos operate as soft porn and a heightened scale of risqué themes are acceptable in everything from television programmes to magazine articles, advertising has always followed suit in a slightly more benign way that believes more flesh = more success. Thems the rules.
But then there’s the other kind. The kind that is knowingly offensive, the kind of ad that comes as close to Carry On as it can without Barbara Windsor falling on to the set. This is the Hunky Dory category, and now, the Club Orange category. The creative concept for the Club Orange ad (if you can call ‘tits’ a creative concept) knows exactly what it is doing. It is there to cause controversy, to offend, to spark the same old debate between irking one camp while the other camp says “oh, come on it’s just a bit of fun.” Now, while some people in marketing and advertising might think that bumping up column inches with their product’s name in it – be the tone negative or positive – is job done, they’re missing the point entirely.
The most irritating thing about this approach is that it is thick. Sure, it’s offensive, sexist, demeaning, irritating and misguided, but primarily it’s stupid. And maybe some snotty nosed Club Orange advertising exec might be rubbing their hands with glee surveying Twitter trends and Facebook statuses and two and fro arguments in the Daily Mail and on radio chat shows exclaiming excitedly “look at all the people talking about us!” and waiting for their bonus, the overarching point has been missed. It all comes back to the real offence: this sort of stuff is stupid, moronic, imbecilic. So don’t even bother patting yourself on the back for generating chatter.
But namely, above all else, this whole Club Orange thing is downright annoying. Women don’t want to complain about this stuff. We don’t want to have to bleat on and on about having a drink sold via breast appeal. And do you know what? We shouldn’t have to. Some might ask whether there’s even any point in complaining about this sort of stuff, whether we should rise above it, ignore it, excuse it of attention because it’s not worth it. I wish. But it’s there, it’s still happening, and we should keep complaining until it stops, because no matter how annoying voices of complaint are, they’re far less annoying than this idiotic towel-snapping base rubbish that we’re meant to put up with in the world of advertising. And if no one listens, well, I’m sure the Advertising Standards Authority still has its ears open.
Maybe I’m being far too generous, but I got the vibe of a parody from the Club Orange ad, which just isn’t there for the Hunky Dory one.
The Hunky Dory ad was just basically breasts and a loose connection to sports. A fairly standard “sports ‘n’ tits” combination which seems to have a market. I guess it was a cheap way to try and break away from the image of Hunky Dory’s being a low fat (and thus ladies’) crisp.
The Club Orange ad seems to drift more towards parody. It just seems too self-aware. I’m unsure, though.
I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture here other than the way women are portrayed in this ad…..
Somewhere there is an exec in a snake skin suite refreshing Google every 3 seconds licking their lips every time a blog post like this pops up.
The ad is not about selling a product its about creating brand awareness. This is achieved not by boobs but by blog posts like this and other media outlets. Hell, I’d bet they didn’t even bother paying for newspaper advertisements seeing as it will be all over the papers anyway.
Should you ignore it? Absolutely not. You should complain about it to the relevant authority. The last thing you should do is broadcast your outrage though, your only doing their bidding for them.
I know what you mean, but the thing is, brand awareness isn’t always a good thing. For example, I won’t be buying Club Orange again because of this, because it’s shown me that the brand is clearly run by sexist goons (or at least that it employs sexist goons and endorses sexist, um, goonery). Before this, I didn’t really have strong feelings about it one way or the other – I might buy a Club Orange in a pub, I might not. All the awareness in the world is absolutely and utterly meaningless unless it translates to sales, and it’s been shown before that high profile, much talked-about ad campaigns don’t necessarily lead to an increase in sales. Ad execs would like to pretend they always do, but they simply don’t.
Im making a complaint to ASA because of this post, so thanks for that, I may not have seen it otherwise.
Anna I think you are giving the average consumer far too much credit here. Unfortunately for every educated person lile yourself there are 5 gormless morons who consume what they are told. These are the same people who have made the likes of McDonald’s, Coca Cola etc. the biggest corporations in the world (despite being guilty of far worse than Club) and they are the people Club want to see this ad. It works on two levels – people are blogging/writing about how distasteful it is which is making the video viral – once the video is viral it is more likely to end up in the lap of the aforementioned idiot consumer.
It’s win win for club really. What needs to looked at is how they got away with making the ad in the first place. The relevant authorities should not allow any company to get away with this kind of stuff but I suppose manipulative marketing is the drive behind so many advertising campaigns these days that it can be hard to regulate.
Hi Anna, I wholeheartedly agree with what you’re saying but I’m just curious where it’s been shown that high profile, much talked-about ad campaigns don’t necessarily lead to an increase in sales. I’m sure there’s proof for this somewhere but unless you can show it exists, the any publicity is good publicity crowd will remain in smug mode.
I too have just made a complaint to the ASA. Let them think I’m a frigid old harridan if they like (I’m not).
Why not organise a protest march (I’ll join ye) ? Slutwalk hasn’t been done in Ireland I don’t think…
I won’t be buying Club Orange either… (was buying it quite often but after this…no way!!)
I’d have thought it was far too clumsy to be truly offensive, but then I’m a bloke.
I’m wondering if the actresses should take the Lysistrata approach, and simply refuse to take part in these kind of ads until the execs lay off the Carry On stuff. Too naive?
Also, aren’t the execs alienating 50% of their potential market?
It’s all the same to me, really. I prefer Fanta.
Ah, come on, It’s a parody, I don’t see anything in it, the actresses and models were paid, and prob had a good laugh too filming it. Im with Pidge here: Maybe I’m being far too generous, but I got the vibe of a parody from the Club Orange ad, which just isn’t there for the Hunky Dory one.
We can make loads of comments across the board on advertisement that are demeaning to both men and women, I am not sure if men gave out about the Diet Coke ads or ads such as: D&G ads http://www.youtube.com/watch?fmt=22&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_54529&v=m1AYy302Pi4
or: the sugar Daddy ads that depict men with 8 packs and oodles of money that some women fall for.. etc etc… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VPHVygoca4&feature=related
ah I could go on, I think it’s quite evident that the advertisers are relying on people giving out/ complaining/ putting emphasis on it to boost the talk point. And it’s working.
It’s funny and I laughed. I wasn’t insulted for my gender though. Fanta is nicer too.
If that’s a parody, then so was Triumph of the Will. It’s called having your cake and eating it. We can gratuitously show glamour models with tits bulging out as long as the tone is half-assedly of the nod and wink (and sure isn’t it all just a bit of fun?) variety. If anything, I think this is even worse than the straight-forward lumpen-headed sexism of Hunky Dory. It’s so fucking disingenuous. The smirking fuckers who make this shit wouldn’t know playful/subversive/witty parody if it bit them in the balls.
As for the “you should just ignore it because doing otherwise playing into their hands” argument. Um, that’s just balls. Critical engagement with this kind of muck is what helped change a previously ubiquitously sexist culture in the first place. Can’t imagine too many first/second wave feminists would have much sympathy for the ignore it and it’ll just magically go away argument.
Never drinking Club Orange again.
*applause*
I’m completely in agreement with your second point. Criticism should be done if needed, even if that is the intention. If someone is doing something simply for the attention, they’ll be shown up as as idiot soon enough.
The first point, though, I’m not so sure about. I don’t think the ad is particularly funny, and – in that sense – I agree that the producers wouldn’t know witty parody if it etc etc. Still, just because it’s not good doesn’t make it any less an attempt at parody, and thus somewhat defensible. The argument you’ve used, and the “the irony gets dropped” thing could be easily deployed against any work of satire (funny, worthy, or otherwise) in history.
Advertising will only change when people start to mock how anachronistic and lazy sexist ads (like the Hunky Dory ones) are. This Club Orange ad isn’t exactly the finest work of that canon, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Far more importantly than all this, I am absolutely sickened that people can think that Fanta is tastier than Club Orange. Monsters.
[godwin's law]But Fanta was made by NAZIS![/godwin's law]
Also, I won’t be buying it again because I’m not sure bare boobies should be so close to sterile equipment. And she totally double-dipped that orange! You wouldn’t get away with that if it was hummus at a party.
This is part and parcel of an insidious trend by which sexism has made itself acceptable again. Dressing itself up as “tongue in cheek” and thus making critics look like po-faced, humourless prigs who can’t take a joke. It’s happening across the board. In films, on TV. Passive acceptance of it as harmless fun is very scary and depressing in my opinion.
Well said fústar. You hit the nail on the head.
The director of the ad is female, if this is of any interest to you. This is all I know, I don’t have any connection and don’t know anyone involved with the ad. I think this sort of negative reaction to ads like this is slight bit hysterical. Genuinely don’t mean to sound smug (and believe me I have an ego the size of a chocolate m&m), but I’m thankful that I’m confident enough and self-assured enough in my own sexuality and position in society that I don’t have to screech every time an ad like this is made and aired. Thank God for that.
*grabs popcorn*
Well done, you managed to inject ‘hysterical’ and ‘screech’ into your calm confident not smug at all post. Perhaps you can add ‘man hatin’ wimmins’ next time to prove your point a little clearer.
Arlene, I deliberately used the word hysterical coz I know Una also voiced her (as far as I recall, virtually unchallenged) opinion very loudly in several media after the Hunky Dory debacle last year (and as I mentioned in another comment, I know her professionally and respect her and her views, this isn’t a personal attack). Now round two has started, and again I get the feeling that as a woman, I’m being spoken for and as I mentioned in another comment, I get the feeling that in order to be on the moral highground you have to be offended by it. And so I couldn’t not speak up for myself as someone on the other side of the issue. I think it’s hysterical because I think any Hunky Dorys or Club Orange is going to make zero difference to the plight of women.
Your “man-hatin wimmins” comment was plain catty.
It wasn’t catty at all, I was a deliberate attempt to make you aware that words carry weight: there was absolutely no need to use ‘hysterical’, or ‘screech’ in your initial comment and you could have easily made your point with them. To use them however makes your comment seem like nothing more than part of a tired old anti-feminist trope that we must all be humourless, easily-offended bitches.
‘Without’, not ‘with’.
No, I couldn’t have made the point I wanted to make without using the word hysterical. I replied to Aoife below explaining why I used it.
Ok, I give in, I am not only a humourless easily-offended bitch, I also hate sex, hate men, hate attractive women, fear all of the above, and have hairy legs (actually the last bit is true…).
“The director of the ad is female” – oh, that’s ok then! Am currently reading Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy and it really is opening my eyes to the all-prevasivness of raunch in Western culture. As she says in the book, it’s not even about sex, it’s about a pornification of sex – it’s all about big breasts and Brazilians, and bears very little relation to real-life sex.
As for the ad, it thinks it’s a clever nod-and-wink parody, but that doesn’t make it any less stupid or sexist.
Eileen, surely you must realise I only mentioned that the director of the ad is female it because I thought it might make the debate more interesting and to make sure it wasn’t being assumed it was a total boys’ club?
Well if that’s the best a female director of an advertising campaign can come up with then it’s a sad day for all of us women. She should be ashamed of herself. No doubt she got big bucks for the whole thing so she’s probably not that worried.
I’ll be asking everyone I know not to buy Club Orange or any other Britvic or C & C related products and I’ll be contacting the ASA also for what that’s worth. (I’m not their biggest fan).
BTW, I don’t think these are the reactions of a ‘hysterical’ female either!
I used to work at an ad agency and have sat around late into the night in a team of “creatives” (most annoying job title ever) trying to think up a smart, witty concept for some crappy product. By 2 or 3 in the morning, when all your ideas are based on sex, that’s when you know you failed. I don’t think any “advertising creatives” want to be the ones who made the ad about boobs. This new Club orange ad is just another example of ad agency / client fail and the concept should never have been approved never mind realised. As someone said earlier, it’s just thick.
I will never buy Club Orange again either.
Fiona, It’s a bit rich to try and portray legitimate critical engagement as screeching and hysterical. And I’m thrilled that you’re self-assured and pleased with your position in society, but I’m also gratified that other people don’t passively take this kind of odious bollocks on the chin.
Thank God for *that*.
I’m reminded of David St. Hubbins…
“You know, if we were serious and we said “yes she should be forced to sniff…smell the glove” then you’d have a point you know but it’s all a joke, isn’t it, we’re making fun of that sort of thing”.
I have another question for everyone who is offended by the ad. If a woman tells you she’s not in any way offended by it, that she doesn’t feel demeaned, that she actually laughed at it and admired the production values….what does that make you think about that woman? Does it make you assume she’s the kinda gal who buys clothes a size too small? Does it make you think she’s probably never formed an independent opinion in her life? Or does it make you think she’s maybe got her own self-esteem issues to deal with? What does it make you think?
Um, you’re the one making assumptions about people who find this offensive, not the other way round. You’re the one saying it’s nothing but screechy hysteria.
Very simple fustar, I feel an assumption in the article that to be offended is to be on the moral highground. And this offends ME. So I’m speaking out as an individual voice to make sure it’s understood that (a) there are women out there who quite enjoyed the ad and that (b) being a member of group (a) doesn’t mean you’re a slapper with no brain. (By the way, I know the author of the post via work and completely respect her, so there’s definitely no personal attack in this whatsoever).
No, that is your assumption and a wrong one at that. You can enjoy the ad if you want but your feelings are not mine. I’m offended by the ad because it is stupid and crass. It relies on a homogenisation of women (and as a man, yes I am ‘allowed’ say that).
It makes me think women are not all one woman and have differing view on many things.
Indeed. And also that if a woman is not offended by it, she should also not be offended/personally insulted by other women finding it offensive. I don’t think anyone’s trying to be all OOH FEMINIST HUMOURLESS THOUGHT POLICE and saying that women *can’t* not be offended by it, just that many women do actually find it mind-bogglingly stupid.
This post and the debate around this ad reminded me again that I simply have no soul. Because I just don’t care. I am an advertising executive’s worst nightmare because I just don’t care about anything much at all. I don’t care which celeb is wearing what, I don’t care what product will make my hair curly/bouncy/straight, I don’t care that Disney/Forever21/Whateveryoureintoyourself is opening in Dublin, I don’t care that the new Apple iWhatever is coming to Ireland. I just don’t care.
And I don’t care one jot about boobs in an ad for a soft drink. I just don’t care one way or another.
Sure it’s a stupid ad. Women in bikinis crushing oranges. We’ve all been to the CocaCola factory, we know that’s not how soft drinks are made. But that’s where my eye-rolling ends. I just don’t care enough.
I’m the same. I generally pay very little attention to advertising. Before reading this post I hadn’t even heard about the ad. I’m not offended by it but I do wonder, if the ad was a bunch of attractive men in tight banana hammocks, talking about their “bits” and “giving them a good squeeze in the morning” would the ad have passed the censors?
There is a difference in the way men and women are portrayed in the media and I think that is the point that is being missed here by some commentators. I work in the media industry and I am constantly pitching ideas for photo shoots that don’t involve the use of a barely dressed model. Unfortunately, there is little I can do when I am over ruled by a male MD who wants a model in a tight shirt and skirt.
I hear THAT.
Last Friday, I went to see the latest X-Men movie. It was dominated by female “characters,” if that’s a fair word, running about not wearing very much. Not to say anything, or to prove any point; just there, part of the norm, barely seen as worthy as comment. And… well, foul, frankly.
The problem with accepting this sort of thing as ironic is that the irony quickly gets dropped, and you just wind up with a culture accepts a degrading portrayal of women as long as someone winks at the camera first.
I was prepared to accept the Hunky Dorys campaign was attempting to be a parodic inversion of the machismo-sodden portrayal of rugby in ads generally, which was perhaps generous, but I thought there was an attempt at something there that backfired. This… oh…
Ultimately, I don’t think it matters if it’s parodic or not. You can argue it’s too absurd to seriously take offence, and I don’t agree at all, I’m not sure that matters either. Because ultimately, the worst thing about this is that it’s unimaginative, and tedious, and witless, and reductive, and just adolescent and crap; the sort of “wit” dreamed up by overgrown manchildren who can’t think of anything better, the sort of tedious bores who start pub-arguments by saying everything is the immigrants’ fault and thinks he’s being subversive. Sad, pathetic little men.
It isn’t subversive, it’s boring. And it’s happening in a climate where corporate misogyny is just getting worse and worse, where at least every other form of discrimination is broadly getting better. I’m sick of it, and I don’t want to see it, and I certainly don’t know how it came to be acceptable. That’s all.
“The problem with accepting this sort of thing as ironic is that the irony quickly gets dropped”. Amen. This happens all the time.
Ha! Seriously, thinking this ad is stupid and offensive has nothing to do with being “confident enough and self-assured enough in my own sexuality and [in a certain] position in society”.
That’s almost as funny as this ad is stupid.
And it’s disappointing how insidious sexism is that so many women have bought into it and think it’s acceptable. Using breasts to sell a soft drink, that’s supposed to be ‘clever’? As Una says, it’s just stupid. A parody is too kind a word for it.
Because really, it’s not even clever in any respect, it’s even dumber than a Carry On film, with the sort of innuendo that a gang of young teens would baulk at.
And it is sexist, just as ads about women leering at fellas while drinking Diet Coke are sexist and stupid.
But you know what? Those Diet Coke ads are in the minority and men aren’t – and never have been, hello patriarchy – subject to the same level of sexism that women are in advertising.
“Ha! Seriously, thinking this ad is stupid and offensive has nothing to do with being “confident enough and self-assured enough in my own sexuality and [in a certain] position in society”.
That’s almost as funny as this ad is stupid.”
@Aoife I absolutely think it has everything to do with it. What drives people to get hot and bothered by this type of ad? The way I see it, it’s driven by some sort of fear that a message like this being delivered to the masses sets us back a few evolutionary steps. That’s me asssuming, I’m open to correction. I’m suggesting that I’m quite happy this ad will have absolutely nothing to stand in your way or my way when it comes to be respected female members of society. I presume you’re offended by the ad, so what exactly is driving you offence? What do you think is going to happen as a consequence of the ad?
Sorry, above post is typo central.
Hey Fiona,
The ad doesn’t have anything to do with my level of confidence in my own sexuality – it has to do with how women’s sexuality is portrayed in this ad. I don’t feel ‘threatened’ by it, but I feel that it gives an exaggerated, reductive and mind-bogglingly simplistic portrayal of women as sexual objects (and men as only wanting to view women in this way).
I’m offended because it is part of the ongoing objectification of women in advertising which I am opposed to.
It’s not like I’m offended by breasts, or sexuality, or nakedness, or sex (eh, I’m human!); I’m offended by women being presented as nothing BUT breasts or their sexuality.
If women are continually presented in ads in such a way, as one-dimensional caricatures, then I think it affects women’s position in society.
We’ve fought hard enough to be seen as more than our biological parts (look at how much we can do because of women who fought for us to be allowed to vote, to receive an education, to work, all things which were partly denied to us because of having female reproductive systems, weak brains, weak female bodies, etc) and these ads just reduce us back down to them.
There are more offensive things out there than this ad, but this is just so eye-rollingly stupid that it makes me wonder who the hell is coming up with these ideas. Surely it’s a troll under a bridge somewhere.
“We’ve fought hard enough to be seen as more than our biological parts (look at how much we can do because of women who fought for us to be allowed to vote, to receive an education, to work, all things which were partly denied to us because of having female reproductive systems, weak brains, weak female bodies, etc) and these ads just reduce us back down to them.”
See, this is precisely what I mean. The ad is being given waaaaaay-hay-hay-hay too much credit which is why i used the word hysterical in another comment. This ad doesn’t reduce us back down to anything, if you ask me. I’m confident that we’ve come far enough as women (we in the Western world, that is, but it’s a Western ad) that we don’t need to get upset and call for boycotts when advertising like this is aired. No one’s gonna take our right to vote away because an ad for fizzy orange on the telly used a “bits” metaphor.
Gender and sexual identity is engrained is such a vast majority of our advertising, so much so that if we were to get offended by it all, we’d have no time to actually live. Let’s not forget too just how often in a tv ad break you’ll see the arguably more shallow elements of women’s sexuality (the ones based on beauty and weight) being sold back to women themselves, with no complaints as far as i can see.
If the above argument was carried through from day to day, the debate would never end – tomorrow we’d be talking about the about SPecial K claiming that as women we’re so much more than a flat stomach.
Hey Fiona, those examples you point out are good ones – as they show how far is still to go!
We have achieved much, but the very fact these silly sexist ads are still trotted out when advertising execs need a new campaign shows that women are still represented as boobs-on-a-stick in some realms.
And some women buy into this, hence the Special K ads, the ‘Swan’ tv shows, elements of reality TV, ‘women’s mags’, etc.
I respect that some people want to think of this as normal, and not make a fuss, but to me it’s not normal and demeans the role of women in society.
The debate won’t end as long as these ridiculous ads exist. And as for giving them publicity by talking about them? So what. I don’t mind as long as it opens a wider debate about the way women are represented in our culture.
If we don’t challenge things, then nothing changes.
>>> Let’s not forget too just how often in a tv ad break you’ll see the arguably more shallow elements of women’s sexuality (the ones based on beauty and weight) being sold back to women themselves, with no complaints as far as i can see.
See, but this is part of the problem, too. When we’re not watching ads where big-bazoomed ladies are offering to squeeze themselves, we’re watching ads that say, ‘Until you’re ready for a lift ( = a facelift), use this skin cream.’ What kind of a world is this to give to our daughters? We’re either sex objects, or else we’re not good enough to be/ being taught how to be sex objects?
I agree with the ladies on here who are saying, yeah, it’s one thing to say it’s ironic & just meant to be funny, but you’d be amazed how quickly the irony falls away. It’s true. I also agree with Annie who has worked in an ad agency – I have too – if you’d have pitched this idea in any of the mtgs I’ve been in/ with any of the colleagues I’ve had the good fortune to work with (all men), you wouldn’t be hired again. Seriously, this is an incredibly lazy, cheap idea.
Yes yes yes. It would be lovely, truly it would, if idiotic life-support-system-for-a-pair-of-big-bouncing-boobs-and-a-brazilian representations of women had no effect on how women are viewed in society and how they view themselves. But I don’t think that’s the case.
And I don’t think even the most iron-clad self-confidence and sex-positivity and whatever has anything to do with it. I don’t want my son growing up with wall-to-wall “ironic cheesecake”. If I had daughters, I wouldn’t want them subjected to a constant barrage of Here’s What A Woman Should Look Like And Here’s What’s Of Worth About Her (Clue: Tits. Also For The Love Of God Wax That Hairy Thing.). I don’t want teenage boys to think “huh huh huh tits get them out for the lads givvus a feel g’wan” isn’t just adolescent hormone overload but a perfectly acceptable adult viewpoint. I want men not to feel entitled to pass comment on my chest (why thankyou, perv who commented loudly on the size of my boobs when I was visibly pregnant). Yes, *of course* we can counteract the message to our daughters. Yes, we can provide different role models and blah blah yadda yadda. But y’know, shouldn’t we have better things to be doing? Old, old, old.
YES.
Yeah, I remember being an eight-year-old and sneaking looks at Page 3 to try and work out what all this sex thing was about. And sure, I’m now a 32-year-old woman and totally capable of distinguishing between enjoying sex and being attracted to someone, and wanting to look sexy and wanting people to be attracted to me, but it took me most of my teens and plenty of my twenties to work that out. And I was one of the lucky ones, who didn’t get into any seriously violent, unpleasant or dangerous situations whilst I worked that out.
I really fcking hate the fact that another generation of girls is going to go through that process.
Fanta for me then. Big Fail Club Orange !
Once again, Una Mullally and feminists fall into the trap. This ad simply exists to be talked about. It’s not making a social commentary, it hasn’t got any other agenda than publicity-seeking. It’s the advertising equivalent of a streaker; while some in the crowd might think the streaker is a pervert, a misogynist or making a comment about the virtues of naturism, the streaker just did it to get noticed.
It’s articles like this that are oxygen to it; if no-one talked about the ad, maybe a blogger-blackout, then the male and female advertising professionals behind it (yes, it’s quite likely women were involved in this) wouldn’t do it again.
For the record, I think this ad is lazy, boring and isn’t going to woo me away from Finches, which is much nicer anyway!
I couldn’t belive my eyes when I saw this ad. I felt sad.
I think Fiona highlights something important when she said that she feels confident enough not to be affected by those ads.
I used to hate them and they made me angry because I knew the research and the effects they have on society but never personally affected me really. But now, after having two babies very close together, instead of angry on principle, they make me feel inadequate and take another knock out of my already dented ego. That’s my hard luck I guess.
Soft porn has affects on the male brain that we should be minimising in daily life – not seeking to increasingly bring into mainstream society.
Having two boys has really made me see how unfair we are being to children and young teenagers. Imagine a 14 year-old boy seeing this on tv. What are we teaching them? What impulses are we forcing them to feel in the middle of whatever program they are watching?
Imagine a 14 year old girl watching this ad with her brothers or father in the room – how embarrased would she be! How do these images affect her developing sexuality?
Society is increasingly putting soft porn images and adult messages in mainstream media. I think the effects of this, particularly on boys, is a timebomb waiting to go off.
Yes, this, exactly. I don’t want my son growing up with a culture of “hey, it’s funny so it’s ok” sexism. Like this. Hilarious, eh? Funny joke!
Well said.
In fact, if the makers of the ad truly do intend it to be ‘ironic’ / ‘a pisstake’, it should be on after the watershed, if it’s going to be on tv at all. Children won’t appreciate the subtleties (assuming there are ‘subtleties’) of the ad. Children don’t have perspective: they’re new here. So they see an ad like that and, kind of as Susan alludes above, they take it at face value. Ugh.
Of course then the next issue is, this thing is already a viral HIT online. TV ads like this are so not even about ever getting on TV any more! It literally doesn’t matter if it’s pulled off the air in 24 hours. So then you’re into a whole, very new set of questions about how standards & practices apply online (where there is no watershed) and what is even enforceable.
Annie sounds as if she got it just right. I remember the Pretty Polly tights ads of the seventies (‘For girls who don’t want to wear the trousers’). They wised up in the end. I avoided Pretty Polly for decades.
Does the word ‘vulgar’ mean anything to under 50s? This ad just struck me as vulgar.
I like the ‘streaker’ analogy and I agree with it to a certain extent. Yes, the marketing people are seeking attention with this kind of advertising… but not THIS kind of attention. No agency likes to be outed for producing stupid work, even if their defence is automatically: “It was supposed to be stupid, stupid.”
“We’ve fought hard enough to be seen as more than our biological parts (look at how much we can do because of women who fought for us to be allowed to vote, to receive an education, to work, all things which were partly denied to us because of having female reproductive systems, weak brains, weak female bodies, etc) and these ads just reduce us back down to them.”
See, this is precisely what I mean. The ad is being given waaaaaay-hay-hay-hay too much credit which is why i used the word hysterical in another comment. This ad doesn’t reduce us back down to anything, if you ask me. I’m confident that we’ve come far enough as women (we in the Western world, that is, but it’s a Western ad) that we don’t need to get upset and call for boycotts when advertising like this is aired. No one’s gonna take our right to vote away because an ad for fizzy orange on the telly used a “bits” metaphor.
Gender and sexual identity is engrained is such a vast majority of our advertising, so much so that if we were to get offended by it all, we’d have no time to actually live. Let’s not forget too just how often in a tv ad break you’ll see the arguably more shallow elements of women’s sexuality (the ones based on beauty and weight) being sold back to women themselves, with no complaints as far as i can see.
If the above argument was carried through from day to day, the debate would never end – tomorrow we’d be talking about the about SPecial K claiming that as women we’re so much more than a flat stomach.
“If the above argument was carried through from day to day, the debate would never end”
Exactly. It SHOULD never end. You’re implying an impossibility of living a life of critical engagement with the shitness of the world. A sort of “Let’s just get on with it” attitude. That’s your choice. I think there are lots of people who are fully capable of (and interested in) engaging critically with the bullshit that rains down on us daily without it compromising (in any way) their ability to lead a full life. There’s no conflict here.
Also, just because an ad like this isn’t going to automatically plunge you back into pre-suffrage domestic servitude doesn’t mean that images like the above don’t have a power and a meaning. One worth challenging and combating. We’re talking about legitimate struggles over representation and meaning. If this kind of discussion isn’t worth having then it makes us all passive consumers of reactionary, insidiously-sexist, garbage.
*applauds*
What he said, basically.
I’m not personally offended by this ad. I don’t feel anger or disgust watching it.
I am irritated that advertising companies for these products still chose use such stupid methods that might impress the odd teenage boy.
I will chose Fanta over Club Orange after watching this… Although we rarely buy soft drinks in this house.
This ad is so OTT, it’s hilarious! It doesn’t offend me in the slightest, it amuses me. What interests me in the above comments is that how it seems to polarise people. You can be female and smart (why thank you) AND also think the Club Orange ad is simply entertaining. i don’t feel belittled by it. i just think it’s pretty funny. That’s all. That’s my perspective
Una i find it interesting that you seem to think the objectification of men is okay because ‘It only happens once in a while’.
Objectification of men and women is wrong, this ad is silly but no more silly than the Diet Coke ad or other such ads where men are the object…….a bit more balance from the feminists would be appreciated.
This ad is, as has been said many times, lazy, boring and cringe inducing, it makes me sad that anyone would think this kind of ad is going to sell the product. Its been done so many times before that i am not even sure that the ad will have the effect of making people talk about it much…….ie the whole idea of a well thought out advert.
Basically in my view its hardly worth commenting on to be honest.
As an aside, that Hunky Dory ad was beyond thick. Not least because “crisps” doesn’t sound enough like “tits” for it to be a joke. Massive copywriting fail. The Club Orange ad makes a similar mistake with the “beets” scripting.
I’m not entirely sure that better jokes in equally sexist ads would be less offensive to me, but there’s certainly a lack of overall quality control that allows this kind of thing to get funded in the first place.
The ad is heroically lazy and unimaginative built to generate copy, which everyone is generously obliging much to the delight of the quick thinkers who devised this ad. That’s really all there is to it.
It’s clear an ad like this will be shown to be in breach of Standards and be pulled just like the Hunky Dorys campaign so why give it the oxygen of publicity it’ll be gone soon?
This isn’t exactly comparable with how sad it is to see something Like Teen Mom or girls compartmentalising reality and fact to think Playboy is a career choice.
An ad like this is a tributary of issues worth talking about.
If the ad used the word tits instead of bits would the “pc gone mad” posters here find it objectionable?
I’m gonna refer to this advertising approach as ‘boobs for blog posts’ from now on. I have to say that I find a lot of the back-and-forth over how women should feel about the issue / how men’s brains are physiologically affected by these forms of advertisement etc… kind of tiring after a while.
There is a very malicious intent in these forms of advertisement whereby even negative publicity achieves the desired affect of promoting the product in question.
However, I still feel that the best approach is to state simply and publicly that you are both aware of and pissed off enough with this commercial tactic to feel compelled to never buy from the company again.
Otherwise, you allow yourself to be forced to remain silent for fear of falling into the trap that they have set. Club Orange is a brand and nothing more. We can live without it if we want to.
I wasn’t offended by this ad per say. My overwhelming emotion after watching it was more of disappointment that a brand, with the scope to be playful and original in a much more creative way, chose such a cliched, boring and headline-grabbing route. Yawn.
What do you want? A line at the end saying “No woman was demeaned in the making of this commercial”? If any woman was demeaned it was the actresses (sorry, actors). You’re not the audience – its clearly targeted at 15 year old boys. And may I remind you about the ad that once started with a woman speaking to camera stating that “It must have been a man who said that beauty is only skin deep…”
And we shouldn’t be in any way interested in how women are represented in ads marketed to young men?
Yes, and the advertising standards authority do that. They green-light ads based on legal advice, research and moral standards and practices in advertising – they probably subscribe to a European model of censorship at this stage… Either way, its not an issue. Why not pick on that black and white ad with the naked man walking across the room (for some aftershave or other). His backside was clearly on show and there weren’t any women complaining about that!
So the advertising standards authority are utterly infallible arbiters of taste and morality and any ad that’s been greenlighted by them can’t possibly have anything to complain about in it. Riiiiiiight.
And actually, yeah, I do find ads that assume because I’m a woman I’ll buy something because it’s advertised with a man’s arse offensive. I see several men here are offended by the Club Orange boobfest.
Why no open criticism of the agency, Chemistry?
http://www.chemistry.ie/
Or the copywriter, Emmet Wright?
Your main critique of the ad as totemic exemplar of the purposefully offensively sexually crude, is that it is “thick”, “stupid, moronic, imbecilic.”? It’s only as stupid as the sales figure in black ink at the end of the quarter as far as anyone involved in the decision making chain that approved the campaign is concerned. If you want to attack it you need to attack it outside of the internal logic: by boycotting the product, gathering together a petition, pressuring ad sales depts in media outlets and lobbying the relevant regulator. Failing that you lobby whoever the regulator answers too. But it never ends. There’ll always be crude and sexual advertising. In the webby future that’s even harder to regulate. One upshot is that crudely sexual ads are more likely to be shown to men given customisation and tracking.
PS – “a soft drink isn’t even a gendered product!” – Any product can be genderedif the marketters want it to be, it’s a social construct, not an objective fact. See Yorkie, Special K.
Criticising the ad Chemistry made, on a public blog, is pretty open criticism, I’d think?
Sorry I published that without finishing the comment! People are being critical, just because the agency hasn’t been named yet doesn’t mean its identity is being hidden etc.
I think we have been critical of the agency. I think it’s sad that an apparently “creative” agency came up with this work, pitched it to the client, and the client ran with it. What were the other ideas? Were they really worse than this one?
Let’s face it, our advertising standards in Ireland are utter shit. Ads are either super-conservative and safe or they try to be “funny and risky” by making outdated crap like this.
I’m sure Club Orange are hoping for extra sales, but I can’t believe an agency like Chemistry will be putting this in their portfolio.
I think it’s important to name the agency and creatives if you have a problem with the content of the ad. They might say not pitch a similar treatment to a client next time or might bring reservations, such as have been well-expressed here, to the table if they think it will damage them commerically. Chemistry should have their name associated with sexist pap if sexist pap is what they’re selling to commercial clients. So yes, it is of some merit to openly name and criticism them. Let them have negative reaction turn up when their name is Googled.
I need a sub-editor. Or a cup of coffee.
I agree with you, I just thought your opening line was a bit off that’s all.
true
Ah yes, the market will provide a solution.
Actually I think I made the point the market provides no reason for anyone in anyway responsible for the ad to respond to anyone who’s offended by the ad or the social impact of the ad. Key phrase “as far as anyone involved in the decision making chain that approved the campaign is concerned” should have communicated that. It’s not a justification, it’s an immoral mechanistic description. All the responses I outlined (and would be in faovur of by the way) are non-market and directed at intermediaries. The annoyance of non-customers doesn’t matter to executives nor concerns for social impact.
One can of club orange contains 52% of an adult’s recommended daily allowance of sugar. There ain’t no way these actresses ever touch the stuff. Also I have never referred to my boobs as my bits. That’s a word I reserve for another part of my anatomy altogether. Am I alone in this? Personally, it’s the continuous sexualisation of breasts that mostly gets my goat but an ad for City Post I and others did complain about where men wolf-whistled at a woman in the workplace was not upheld because ‘they were of the view that the advertisement was intended to be humorous and light-hearted and on balance they did not consider the advertisement had contravened the provisions of the Code’ which I found a bit bizarre because the code specifically states ‘advertisers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.’ as well as ‘marketing communications should respect the dignity of all persons and should avoid causing offence on grounds of gender… etc’
If the ad offends you definitely complain though. The more people do the more likely it is to be upheld and if nothing else creatives will be encouraged to think a bit harder next time.
This ad simply promotes the harmful fallacy that all women are sexually available. If you’re too thick to contemplate the downside of depictions of women as servile, doe-eyed, uniform sex clones to sell a fucking soft drink, well, I hope you strain your wanking hand so you can’t punch your obnoxious drivel into some abused keyboard as efficiently.
*claps*
heh. Marvellous.
Won’t someone think of the other citruses? Oranges are not the only fruit, you know.
I dunno, I hesitate to comment on this stuff for “The Thames is still wet” reasons, but one point that’s being brought up by default, it seems, and on multiple sides of this argument, is this: how do people challenge (or not) obviously provocative-for-the-sake-of-it campaigns in the age of social media?
I think it’s as important to understand how advertising works at its back end (and in what ways social media marketing/online discussion matter to brands), as it is to understand, on a theoretical level, how images and media work on our perceptions. It’s my understanding that Hu*n*ky D*or*y saw a sales spike this time last year, and if you look at how web analytics are compiled, companies care about discussion, not approval (http://olearyanalytics.com/634/is-everything-hunky-dory-examining-the-social-media-response/), and ultimately, sales. Agencies care that they can deliver the results they promised (even if they can’t be sustained) for a good price. The company spent 500k and the internet did the rest.
Because whether or not you think the ad is offensive, isn’t that something to worry about: that when people have a debate about feminism or social values, a crisp maker or soda pop company wins?
And it’s useful to think about in the sense that the internet has become completely transparent to us — and that’s when something has the greatest power. Advertisers and marketers are amazing at using the power of that transparency to their advantage.
Maybe it’s something as simple as scrambling the name of a brand (and then buying it as an adword before they do, although this is where my internet marketing knowledge ends), and using the scrambled one in discussions, as a way of jamming their analytics? Like how people spell pr0n. Or the beautiful Googling legacy of Rick Santorum’s name.
For the record, I think the ad is dumb, but I have nothing new to add to the debate. Hats off to anyone who still has the energy for it.
There, now you can tear me apart for some minor inconsistency or for being an idiot or a bad feminist, or irrelevant, or whatever. It’s my own fault for commenting on a blog.
I find this style of advertising offensive because of the way it insults what advertising people refer to as ‘the man on the street’. If there are enough idiots out there who buy the product as a result, then there are also enough idiots who will take this portrayal of women at face value.
This ad should be pulled and the client / agency combo ‘creative genius’ who came up with the concept should have their collective knuckles rapped by the ASAI. Parody it may be, but I agree with what fústar said above:
“This is part and parcel of an insidious trend by which sexism has made itself acceptable again. Dressing itself up as “tongue in cheek” and thus making critics look like po-faced, humourless prigs who can’t take a joke.”
Welcome to the bottom of the barrel.
It’s a bloody awful ad.
But the really irritating thing for me is that it’s impossible to win by commenting or not. The whole ‘look at those women bitching about it and playing right into the hands of the advertisers by doing their job for them’ probably has a certain amount of truth in it. But the alternative of saying nothing and pretending to be ok with it? Much worse!
And if it is aimed at 15 year old boys, surely they need to hear SOMEONE saying this is not ok rather than everyone afraid to say anything in case of being accused of ‘not getting the joke’? Some things you cannot let slide.
At this stage when I see ads like this I just feel jaded and sad. Until Hunky Dorys came along I honestly and naively believed that we had moved beyond this “Carry On” marketing but sometimes it seems like we’re moving backwards instead of forwards. I have complained to the ASA because it’s the only avenue open to me – the option of boycotting the brand is not as I wouldn’t consume that sugary concoction if you paid me.
The “don’t give them the oxygen of publicity” arguement doesn’t cut it for me as we have to stand up for what we believe in. Undoubtedly the best way of doing so in this case is by refusing to buy the product but it’s also important to point the finger and say “that’s not funny and it’s not clever”. Thanks Una for doing so.
I agree. It makes me sad too.
Working in the field (but not this campaign) and also lecturing in the Ethics of Marketing gives a few insights:
1) All advertising is, and should, be tailored to the target market. CO is probably young male (14-21). Thus any communication needs to hit that target. The ad, if viewed through that ‘lens’ is a direct hit, so job done for brand manager, media agency etc.
2) Sex sells. Contraversey also sells. Humour sells. All 3 and a viral campaign = success in terms of brand awareness and developing a brand tone of voice. While the negative publicity and sales ‘lost’ from those offended are collateral damage, the benefits are usually higher, regardless of any backlash
3) From an ethics of marketing perspective it is questionable. The target market won’t be offended. but very few marketing professionals ever think or view the world through a ‘moral lens’ (its not their ‘job’!). Any young girl or guy in the process of forming opinions of the opposite sex (take an average 11-13 year old) is influenced by such imagery (and this is a much bigger issue than CO – many global and local brands are regularly at fault). Thus a young girl grows up feeling that her breasts are an important asset and an young man grows up feeling that a girls worth should be measured in cup size.
4) Where such ads are placed in appropriate channels suitable tyo the target market (GQ, specific websites etc.), and avoiding younger eyes they are simply a part of where marketing is right now – right or wrong. Where they are placed for ALL to see (Hunky Dory mistake) then it crosses an ethical boundry
Personally I think it is a good ad for the target market (which can be cyncial and difficult to reach and cut-through to). However it does further expose the youth to sexual imagery and further compounds an early sexualisation of youth, which is clearly unethical
Unfortunately, commercial directors and brand managers are not bonused on ethics!
I also thought it was interesting that none of the women in the ad were Irish. It was like.. ‘as long as it’s not our mothers or sisters’. Go ahead and depict women as (as Allan Cavanagh said above) servile, doe-eyed, uniform sex clones as long as the women are not recogniseable as women who’d be in our own lives. Madonna/whore complex, much?
you mentioned “madonna” there.
I was watching the new lady gaga video lastnight, it seems to have a similar sales pitch to this orange advert, as do tabloid newspapers on a daily basis. Is it something to do with it being food products that makes people offended by one thing, but ignore another on a daily basis??
I am thinking – don’t buy this product ever! That will show them. Hit them where it hurts! I don’t buy any kind of softdrink anyway, I am allergic to all the shit they put in it.
Just a note on the Advertising Standards Authority, because several commenters have referred to them and seem to think they have in some way ‘approved’ the ad for broadcast. Perhaps someone can confirm this, but it’s my understanding that ads are NOT pre-approved by the ASA before they are shown on TV/magazines/billboards. As far as I know, the ASA was set up by the ad industry itself as a voluntary, self-regulating body. It publishes a code of practice and hopes that members adhere to that. It responds to complaints (made after broadcast/publication) and then decides whether to take action such as a reprimand or a ban. But it does NOT vet or approve ads BEFORE they are shown. That is why it’s very important that people do make complaints to the ASA if they feel strongly about something.
On a side note, I do think that consumer power is a potentially strong force that could come into its own if people got organised. It may be the only way to shape and influence the advertising industry and the marketers who do things like sell thongs to children. Now that media has become more social (i.e. online and interactive), consumers’ voices will hopefully be heard more and brands will have to respond to that. So speak up if you feel strongly and your voice just may be heard.
I really hope Rosanna Davison doesn’t come on here & start making accusations that this advertisement contains no Irish models.
I agree the ad is sad-making, that was what I felt. I wish advertising and marketing weren’t such awful things. They don’t have to be. But what they are is a litmus paper, I suppose, which is what makes this ad so sad.
Each time one of these pops up, the arguments are always so depressing – just a joke, have you no sense of humour, I don’t find it offensive, if a woman directed it isn’t it different, and all the usual feminist bashing that goes on, without any deeper consideration about what it says about our society or the lessons we’re teaching our kids. I don’t want my kids to see this ad, as someone said above. It’s really an appalling idea.
Women internalising the idea that this is an acceptable depiction of… women… is far more depressing than men laughing at it laddishly.
Oddly, I would have thought that Mammies were the main buyers of Club Orange.
A different thought, maybe this ad is just a manifestation of the modern generation’s desperate yearning to be breastfed.
Not funny, and I’m surprised how offensive it is.
I can’t boycott C:lu.b O:ra.ng,e because I wouldn’t drink it anyway. But it’s owned by
B ritvic, who also produce Ba lly go wan.
Let’s hit ‘em in their pocket!
Bill Hicks had it right years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrkHslOfZ7k
Am delighted to see that the mens (my brothers) have chipped in to remind us that discrimination against the mens is directly equivalent, and just as bad, and the same in every conceivable way, and of *totes* equal severity and significance to the discrimination against the wimmins. And to claim otherwise is just rank wimmins’ hypocrisy.
I tearfully recall our long struggles for suffrage, and equality of opportunity, and mainstream objectification as sexual objects (the property of our wimmins). And did we get here, to 2011 and a progressive state of enlightenment, by whinging? No! We sucked it up, stuck out our chins, and said nothing. THAT is the way of the mens. *wipes tears away*
Check it out: Jennifer Egan (recent Pulitzer novelist) writing about ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs, which someone mentioned above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/books/review/18egan.html
I think in defence of the ad, the advertisers are also playing on the symbolism of the breast as a source of nourishment. To answer a poster above, the reason why an ad for the product based on men’s bits would never get green-lighted is that men’s bits do not provide milk and are way too close to the urinary organ to be useful for marketing anything.
No men feature in the ad. The women are shown to be in total control of the whole process. If at some point, the woman who speaks handed over a clipboard to a man in a suit or something, then I think it would be totally indefensible.
Club Orange has been using the word “bits” to sell its drink for years and this may turn out to be just one more campaign playing on the word. I agree with the poster who said that breasts are not usually referred to as “bits” in the first place, so it does seem that the advertisers want the viewer to substitute the word “tits”.
What surprises me about the ad is that, as another poster said, it completely alienates 50% of the market (although maybe not every Lesbian out there). And I think where it has questions to answer is with regard to its effect on children. Club Orange is a family drink, after all. I imagine it generates more sales in supermarkets than in pubs (I could be wrong). I think what should be of concern to people is how this contributes, like so many other advertised products and things on TV, to the early sexualisation of children.
As for those saying they are going to buy Fanta from now on, I would have thought that in choosing between the two products one would want to assess the respective manufacturers (Britvic and Coca-Cola) in other ethical areas before making that decision.
Not sure about your point with regard to nourishment – while I understand why you’ve made it, I think given the general timbre of the ad, I couldn’t imagine the people who came up with it thought about it to that level. And if they had – the idea of nourishment from breasts in this context would make the ad quite oedipal, given the primary driver here is sexual
That said, I agree whole-heartedly with your point about its effect on children. As a father of 2 girls (18 months and 3 years) I find it pretty distressing that this ad for Club Orange and the new Jacobs ads place such emphasis on sexual suggestion – especially as I would have thought my eldest daughter is perhaps quite squarely their target market. She likes biscuits and fizzy orange. Ironically, they would be her ‘treats’ when she’s been good.
One of the comments on the YouTube video which has two thumbs up:
“Why would they use manual orange squeezers? That’s ridiculously inefficient! See, this is why you don’t let woman run a business. You can take the woman out of the kitchen, but you can’t take the kitchen out of the woman.”
Cheers Club Orange, you really are doing women a great service here. Sigh.
Ah but come on… Never read those comments on YouTube! Ever! They are depressingly awful. Some sad people with nothing better to do are sitting at their keyboards all night, dreaming up the most offensive, inane and badly spelt comments they can. Leave them at it.
Haha yes, I know I really shouldn’t but I caved and looked. Sadly, it’s exactly the target audience they’re looking for.
Article in the Sunday Tribune by the author of this piece is interesting I think
http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2006/aug/13/gaelic-men-are-models-of-excellence/
Far too much naval gazing going on in this thread
Repeatedly saying this ad is stupid doesn’t make it so.
Men are so used to sexual objectification by females that we couldn’t be arsed complaining about it.
What would women say if 50,000 men went to Croke Park to scream at 5 women?
How many women would happily accompany their men to a movie just because a certain pleasing particular female actor is in it? (cf George Cloony, Brad Pitt etc.)
“Repeatedly saying this ad is stupid doesn’t make it so.”
Maybe…but the ad does quite a job of doing that all by itself.
Boo hoo. Poor men. We have it so rough. I can’t step outside the door without hordes of female builders roaring “Show us yer balls!!”.
And you’re spot on, Fred. Women getting enthusiastic at a Take That music concert (over music that obviously means something to them, having, presumably, been an important part of their formative years) is EXACTLY the same level of sexual objectification as nameless models stripped to their undies urging us to fondle their bits.
Exactly the same thing.
Dear Folks at Club Orange HQ (and your corporate parents),
I am a consumer of your products – in supermarkets, pubs (love a pint of rock-shandy on a hot day), shops, cinemas and petrol stations. I regularly buy your products for myself and members of my family. I see from your latest ad campaign, however, that your product is actually intended for people who think very differently to the way I do and whose values are oppositie to those I have tried to inculcate in my children. People, I have always told them, are not objects and to treat them as such demeans them.
We will not be buying your products again.
Yeah, that kind of thing!
Im a 24 yr old male, studied for a bachelors degree in marketing and am currently doing a marketing masters. I love the ad , i think its quite funny/clever and think that ppl are going very overboard with all of this. no matter what way anyone looks at this or thinks about this ad I believe this is going to add vast somes of money to the club orange coffers either way. there’s worse things happening in the world at the end of the day and a simple funny ad with a couple of attractive women in it managed to put a smile and a giggle on my face when I saw it last week and am most definitely glad for it. Go club orange , love every bit
But Greeny, it’s not what YOU think, it’s what consumers think that matters. You’re doing a master’s in marketing, yet your only concern is for your views on the ad, not the majority of other commenters here.
A glittering career in marketing awaits…
“vast somes of money”
Indeed.
But fiona why isn’t it what i think?? , I am a consumer of the product (on a regular basis) and I like it …. I acknowledge the concerns of the “serious club orange consumers” that seem to be on this but the fact that you disregard and have basically nullified my thoughts on the ad says to me that you don’t understand my stance on the ad and what I think of it, (even though I am a consumer of the product!) , hmm maybe you don’t understand me and what makes me tick and what gets my attention and perception , in my own group of peers from a similar business based backround of men and women they all love the ad. i believe it is only harmless fun and if educated ppl aren’table to decipher the sexual content and inuendo of it in a clear and lucid manner which screams this isn’t reality then the majority of ppl who complain about this are plain and simply stupid!!!!!every sane and in any way intelligent human being can tell this is only a laugh and isn’t true to life and can make their own opinions on it
“if educated ppl aren’table to decipher the sexual content and inuendo of it in a clear and lucid manner which screams this isn’t reality then the majority of ppl who complain about this are plain and simply stupid!!!!!”
Future marketer believes majority of consumers posting here, who have viewed the ad, are stupid for not having a positive reaction to it. As I said, a glittering career awaits you.
“there’s worse things happening in the world at the end of the day”
Indeed there is/are. Like 24 yr old males currently doing a marketing masters who love the ad.
I’m getting depressed just thinking about my two daughters (8 and 12) seeing this ad, which they probably will. I’d want to talk to them about it, but where to start?
Well clearly you are their target audience, so enjoy your orange. I won’t be buying their product again and I was one of the people who did. As such the ad failed.
Thing about an advert like this is that you make it and it never has to broadcast saving a fortune. I have only seen it online and I don’t believe it has been on TV? (I stand corrected). All the talk about the brand/product is done by us. In the past it would have been through the newspapers and on radio and now its online as well. There are plenty of campaigns that cost big money to make and to broadcast that don’t get this kind of word of mouth coverage. This is smart marketing from a practical point of view.
However, it is pretty lowest common denominator stuff and not only that it’s formula stuff that couldn’t be more blunt. Somebody must have said at a meeting – let’s deploy a generic sexy ad with voluptious girls in it campaign. Pretty lazy stuff but it works and I doubt if Club Orange have paid a cent other than make it. I am surprised that they have undertaken this campaign given that I regard Club Orange as a family brand and something quite Irish.
Having said that, PR companies and Government departments have been deploying the sexy-girls-in-bikinis-photo-shoot routine for years. So should we be surprised?
At the end of the day, like it or not they’ll get their free coverage and sales will probably increase. It didn’t seem to do Hunky Dory’s any harm.
The irony of the three adverts that I can think of that proved this kind of controversy – Budget Travel (seat in the sun), Hunky Dorys and now Club Orange all the principles or marketing managers are women! I am not sure what this says about the state of play, just an observation.
Here’s the production credits for the Club Orange advert:
http://halfanhour.tv/wordpress/2011/06/club-orange-commercial-too-muchdamned-its-orange-juice/
Thanks for that link. These are the people in whose collective genius resides the belief that the product needed to be ‘sexed up’.
Agency: Chemistry
Copywriter: Emmet Wright
Art Director: Nicole Sykes
Agency Producer: Fiona McGarry
Creative Directors: Emmet Wright and Mike Garner
Client: Club Orange
Head of Marketing Carbonates: Sharon Yourell Lawlor
Production Company: Blinder
Director: Richie Smyth
Producer: Michael Duffy
I suppose a real repost would be a reply video…
Hello just came across your blog while looking online for the Club Orange ad – just joking!
This ad is stupid and an obvious attempt to generate PR through controversy, do women not drink Club Orange? If this is on the tely it should only be on after 9.
I wrote an article the other day saying the Presidency is in danger of becoming a tokenistic way for us to feel good about ourselves and until we have a woman Taoiseach, not figurehead President, we can’t say we are a truly inclusive society.
http://middleclassdub.blogspot.com/2011/06/presidency-should-not-be-about.html
think some ppl take this a little too personally and seriously when trying to have a decent debate on this topic. not any need for personal attacks or slaggins of others opinions…
how is your career going Fiona seen as you’re so fixed on the subject ?glittering ye?seem to have a lot of time to write on this so I’d imagine you’re not too busy…. any advice or anecdotes to add to your short repost there?
I thought this was an odd ad for Club Orange given that it seems so much at odds with the brand’s existing image. While one can argue the relative merits of the Lynx ads, they are at least consistent with the brand’s overall identity. Club Orange are obviously seeking to target the same audience, but it seems that this ad does so at the expense of alienating its existing base. Which doesn’t appear to be smart marketing to me. Surely the goal would to attract new customers without driving away existing ones?
I’m not offended by the idea of using sex or sexuality to sell products (even Club Orange) but I am concerned with the limited portrayal of sexuality in this ad, even within the obvious attempt at parody. I get the joke (and there really is only the one) but I didn’t think it was particularly funny, original or intelligent and it wore very thin after the first twenty seconds or so – never mind the full minute. I just wish that they offered a less homogenised version of sexuality. The clichés of half-dressed clones of anatomical perfection with no freckles, no deviations in sight. The faux porn of juice tasting. I know I’m expecting too much from ad designed to sell fizzy orange to teenage boys but maybe if we expected more, we’d get more. Let’s have a smarter, more nuanced portrayal of sexuality. Let’s get away from the stereotypes and let the ad agencies deliver a more representative version of reality.
Tongue-in-cheek (or tongue slavering over lower lip) it may be, and not everyone (of either gender) might be offended by it but I find the ad kind of depressing. All that budget and all they could come up with was breast-in-a-pun.
(and please forgive me for this mini-hijack but if you want some different parody in a video have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-v17ZHyiZc)
I complained to the ASA about this advert. Their response was astounding thug said That”there was insufficient grounds for them to intervene” they whent on to claim that the advert was and I quote ” unlikely to cause widespread offence or be seen as objectifying women” .
Truly remarkable conclusion!!!!