I thought at first that this was surprising, but then I remembered….
Chris Packham said in A Peoples Manifesto for Wildlife:
“This manifesto is political.
It calls for change in the way we treat nature in the UK – this will require
strong and swift government action.”
I support A Peoples Manifesto for Wildlife.
In no way do I accept that I may be a politician.
I set high standards for myself and think freely, without any “Party Political Bias.”
Oh, I remember, Chris Packham said that as well.
I found this quite moving yet simple and direct, thus it is very effective. My one question is why could it not be broadcast?
IT CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
One might ask who at the ASA said it couldn’t be and why?
The organisation in the frame for banning the advert for being political is Clearcast. From what I can see Clearcast is a commercial organisation that delivers services to advertisers and their agencies. One such service is advert clearance i.e. making sure it meets advertising standards. Clearcast works on behalf of broadcasters to ensure that adverts they are asked to broadcast meet the standards. I understand Clearcast claim that the Iceland advert is political because the video was borrowed from Greenpeace and Greenpeace is a political organisation (!). However I have watched the advert and at no time is Greenpeace mentioned. Clearcast’s clients and clients of the broadcasters will include those large multinationals who supply products containing palm oil. I’d say that this has nothing to do with politics and all to do with the money.
The good news is that Iceland and the palm oil / habitat destruction issue is probably getting more publicity than it would have if the advert was aired on TV.
When we take direct action – marches, demonstrations outside company HQs, blockades and so on – we are often told that this is too extreme and we should instead use our “consumer choice” to bring about change. Now we find that when a company produces an advert that enables us to do just that, it gets banned.
It’s almost as if those in power don’t want anything to change.
I wonder which part of the film made it political? The closing message about change?
I think its going to make me stand back and scrutinies any adverts that have a social message… if you have rules you have to apply them fairly and rigorously.
But this is an Iceland ad… I keep hearing “There’s a red grouse in my bedroom….”…and the place smells of hypocrisy.
Just watched a political advert on the telly. Credit card company encouraging people to return to shopping on the high street. Straight forward political campaign.
What a major break with ‘traditional’ advertising this is and by God it’s paid the price for it. Just imagine if this became a standard approach then it would hurt so many companies with everything from virgin fibre toilet paper to those flogging the eastern European forests to us in the form of ‘prestige’ hardwood furniture. That this was regarded as political is utterly pathetic. I read that Bruce Parry of the superb Tribe TV series wanted to do another one linking our consumerism to much of the ecological and social damage he has witnessed while living with tribal people’s. The BBC turned him down. This is why I believe that an emphasis on climate change campaigning is actually a useful diversion for vested interests and career politicians you can put your hand on your heart and yammer on as much as you like about protecting the future re projected, but none the less speculative and often extrapolated effects of greenhouse gases, and people can easily choose to ignore it. But look what happens when you direct attention to a clear and threat to the natural world right now such as clearance of rain forest for palm oil or for that matter the sea filling up with plastic. One hell of a difference isn’t it? This is why I feel the way CC has become the foreground issue has been a disaster. I really hope this ad gets on telly because it marks a significant and necessary change to advertising and it isn’t good enough that it becomes restricted to social media. That ad was as much as anything else a welcome break from the bland, keep up with the Joneses crap we get – the oakfurnitureland ads spring to mind.
Comments are closed.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRejectRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
I thought at first that this was surprising, but then I remembered….
Chris Packham said in A Peoples Manifesto for Wildlife:
“This manifesto is political.
It calls for change in the way we treat nature in the UK – this will require
strong and swift government action.”
I support A Peoples Manifesto for Wildlife.
In no way do I accept that I may be a politician.
I set high standards for myself and think freely, without any “Party Political Bias.”
Oh, I remember, Chris Packham said that as well.
I found this quite moving yet simple and direct, thus it is very effective. My one question is why could it not be broadcast?
IT CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
One might ask who at the ASA said it couldn’t be and why?
The organisation in the frame for banning the advert for being political is Clearcast. From what I can see Clearcast is a commercial organisation that delivers services to advertisers and their agencies. One such service is advert clearance i.e. making sure it meets advertising standards. Clearcast works on behalf of broadcasters to ensure that adverts they are asked to broadcast meet the standards. I understand Clearcast claim that the Iceland advert is political because the video was borrowed from Greenpeace and Greenpeace is a political organisation (!). However I have watched the advert and at no time is Greenpeace mentioned. Clearcast’s clients and clients of the broadcasters will include those large multinationals who supply products containing palm oil. I’d say that this has nothing to do with politics and all to do with the money.
The good news is that Iceland and the palm oil / habitat destruction issue is probably getting more publicity than it would have if the advert was aired on TV.
When we take direct action – marches, demonstrations outside company HQs, blockades and so on – we are often told that this is too extreme and we should instead use our “consumer choice” to bring about change. Now we find that when a company produces an advert that enables us to do just that, it gets banned.
It’s almost as if those in power don’t want anything to change.
I wonder which part of the film made it political? The closing message about change?
I think its going to make me stand back and scrutinies any adverts that have a social message… if you have rules you have to apply them fairly and rigorously.
But this is an Iceland ad… I keep hearing “There’s a red grouse in my bedroom….”…and the place smells of hypocrisy.
Just watched a political advert on the telly. Credit card company encouraging people to return to shopping on the high street. Straight forward political campaign.
What a major break with ‘traditional’ advertising this is and by God it’s paid the price for it. Just imagine if this became a standard approach then it would hurt so many companies with everything from virgin fibre toilet paper to those flogging the eastern European forests to us in the form of ‘prestige’ hardwood furniture. That this was regarded as political is utterly pathetic. I read that Bruce Parry of the superb Tribe TV series wanted to do another one linking our consumerism to much of the ecological and social damage he has witnessed while living with tribal people’s. The BBC turned him down. This is why I believe that an emphasis on climate change campaigning is actually a useful diversion for vested interests and career politicians you can put your hand on your heart and yammer on as much as you like about protecting the future re projected, but none the less speculative and often extrapolated effects of greenhouse gases, and people can easily choose to ignore it. But look what happens when you direct attention to a clear and threat to the natural world right now such as clearance of rain forest for palm oil or for that matter the sea filling up with plastic. One hell of a difference isn’t it? This is why I feel the way CC has become the foreground issue has been a disaster. I really hope this ad gets on telly because it marks a significant and necessary change to advertising and it isn’t good enough that it becomes restricted to social media. That ad was as much as anything else a welcome break from the bland, keep up with the Joneses crap we get – the oakfurnitureland ads spring to mind.