New year, new advertising controversy. This time courtesy of Garry Lace's agency Beta and the Outdoor Advertising Association. As I'm sure that you've read about its a campaign designed to demonstrate how outdoor advertising can generate mass public awareness.
Did it work?
In one sense without doubt. Debate was sparked all over the web (though mainly on Mumsnet and Twitter from what I can see and ironically not on BritainThinks.com which was the stated objective) and the ad was pulled yesterday.
But does this prove that outdoor "works" as a medium or does it prove that a controversial message generates controversy?
On Monday Islam4UK announced that they would be marching in Wooten Basset with empty coffins in an anti-war demonstration. They likened the British Army to the Nazi Army and all hell broke loose. Just take a look on Google. Islam4UK didn't use an outdoor billboard to spark this, they used a press release but it got the required result.
Messages that upset and anger people get them talking.
The message not the medium.
It's quite simple.
If Beta had decided to make a short film about how inadequate working mothers are, then seeded it and released it online I think that it would probably have had the same effect.
And now apparently Beta have decided to sue Mumsnet (can anyone confirm that's true??) The Mumsnet community certainly seem to think that is the case. Click on the link and read from about the 60th page of comments for the latest.
As one mum said "He Who Shall Not Be Named" (they are not allowed to mention the Beta founder by name anymore) wanted a campaign that sparked debate and when it sparked debate he now wants to shut it down.
Ridiculous.
Happy new year.
...................................
UPDATE 7/01/10: The Mumsnet legal action was initiated because of the comments about Garry's genitalia apparently. See comments below.
Spot on. In this case it's absolutely the message, not the medium. A proactive but ultimately poorly thought-through campaign.
Would it have pissed people off on TV? Err, yes. Radio, yup. Newspapers, yeah --- etc etc...
Posted by: doug | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 11:32 AM
I completely agree.
It also seems like a bit a waste - they could have done something really interesting with this brief.
Posted by: Simon | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 01:15 PM
100% in agreement. Let's see what impact the remaining ads have...
Posted by: NicolaArnold | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 02:51 PM
sue them for what???
Posted by: Louise | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 04:45 PM
If you try and read the MN thread (which is practically impossible as they have pulled down almost all of the posts) I think that a lot of people started talking about Garry Lace and his "colourful" history, saying that Beta his new agency were sexist twats and that female clients should think twice about doing business with them. There was an email that was sent to Justine the founder yesterday. I am not sure how they are breaking the law though. Might be talking with the MN founders?
MN had a similar issue with Gina Ford though and I believe that she won and they aren't allow to critize her on the site (or something like that!)
Posted by: amelia | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 04:53 PM
he might try to claim it's defamatory.
good luck with that.
Posted by: Louise | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 04:59 PM
Actually quite scary, Beta's lawyers are asking for personal details on the women who post on MN. This is from Justine the founder:
.......................
Laydees your posts are being deleted if they break site rules - so please refrain from insults - this is what we've agreed with the LAWYERS!
(Crazycatlady - twas the nasty bigots comment)
Incidentally we've been asked for the personal details of a few of you (below) which of course we will not supply. But seems that Garry would like to get to know some of you better hmm.
LadyBlaBlah
Harriedandflustered
Mrs Baldwin
Overmydeadbody
Southeastastra
HerBeatitude
FunnyLittleFrog
DIttany
FlightAttendant
Mr sChemist
Paulaplumpbottom
SydneyScarborough
Imisssleeping
Whomovedmychocolate
Thumper76
Posted by: amelia | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 05:22 PM
blimey.
well, he tried to spark a controversy and it now appears he has got one.
Posted by: Louise | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 05:38 PM
Looks like he's got the wrong one though, Blimey!
Posted by: Julia Royce | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 05:49 PM
Legal action was initiated because many of the forum users have made repeated, defamatory comments about Garry Lace's genitalia. Many of the deleted comments comprised of poems and expletives directed at Lace too. What was, initially a laudible cause just descended into a minbogglingly childish parade of peacockery.
Posted by: John smythe | Thursday, 07 January 2010 at 11:58 PM
@John Smythe Thank you for your comment about why Garry felt it was necessary to take legal action. Really appreciate it.
Genitalia huh?? I thought that it was the fact that MN were questioning the professionalism of Beta.
I would never have predicted that genitalia were the issue.
Anyway I did try and send a message to the email address that left but I had a bounce-back saying that this was a false email address. Which I thought was a shame.
(Thank you for leaving your IP address though: 217.162.58.112 )
Posted by: amelia | Friday, 08 January 2010 at 06:47 AM
legal action because of genital banter? seriously. FFS.
If it's a size issue, perhaps he should just post a photo to settle the matter :)
Posted by: doug | Friday, 08 January 2010 at 10:56 AM
yup, photo a v good idea.
D'you know it's jolly odd: rule number one in my copy of 'Social Media for Nitwits' says that enterprises which bugger up should 'quickly put hands up, apologize and ask how to make amends'. It's *possible* the new edition dumps that for 'threaten to sue' but I'm sceptical to be honest.
This agency is supposed to be at bleeding edge of good social media practice, right? The kind of people that you can trust to know what's what? Good grief.
Posted by: KateVWilliams | Friday, 08 January 2010 at 12:17 PM
I just don't know what to make of this whole thing Amelia - the fact that an offensive ad ran or the puerile responses on all sides of the fence afterwards. All terribly unedifying and another stick to beat the industry with and another 'non-victory' for prickly social networks.
The really worrying thing is that it may have been based on the results of The Good Childhood Enquiry which states: 'Most women now work outside the home. In Britain 70% of mothers with 9-12 month old babies now do some paid work. This compares to only 25% twenty-five years ago.
Women’s new economic independence has made women much less dependent on their male partner, as has the advent of the welfare state. These factors have contributed to the rise of family break up. As a result of increased break-up, a third of British sixteen year olds now live apart from their biological father.'
Potential dynamite and all rather depressing. lets hope there is something in the industry worth talking about next week ;)
M
Posted by: Holycow | Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 03:02 PM
I don't agree with it..
Women can do job and can care of her child simultaneously.Women can make the world better.
I heard about a job portal http://naukriforwomen.com where they are helping women to built there career.
Posted by: Pujanfw | Thursday, 04 March 2010 at 06:28 AM
I can't believe how daring some companies are with their advertising!
Posted by: Media Planning | Tuesday, 28 December 2010 at 07:43 PM