You may have caught the new Steers ad during the rugby - not the stupid one with the two blokes watching the Indy 500 - the one meant to be a new TV experiment, which tracks where you look during the ad [sneaky sneaky]. It seems to be causing rather a large uproar and it appears its banning seem imminent. Here's a reminder...
Hmmm...reminds us a bit of this classic Carl's Jr burger ad from a few years back:
Ok, so it's not that brazen, but do you think it's offensive enough to be banned? We could swear there's a version of the Steers ad featuring kittens as well.
Update: Prelim results from our survey show that 65% of Cherryflava readers think that a touch of T&A in this ad is perfectly acceptable.
Further Update: Turns out the 65% of you who liked the T&A were all over-ruled - the Advertising Standards Authority has now banned the ad...which just makes it even cooler now. Go Steers!
The Paris Hilton ad is offensive because SHE is offensive.
As for the first one, the short answer is yes but only in the sense that it makes objects of women, compares them to meat and presents female body images we could do with moving away from.
And it's softcore porn.
Posted by: Daniel Hoffmann-Gill | July 15, 2008 at 10:07 AM
my girlfriend (who makes commercials) and I (who doesn't make or really watch commercials) both saw this ad the other day, and thought it was great. ban it? I mean really!
Posted by: laz | July 16, 2008 at 09:05 PM
These ads are only offensive to religious fundamentalists who have the Advertising Standards Authority number on speed dial. To the rest of us, these are cheeky ads that are a breath of fresh air from the conventional stuff we see all the time.
Posted by: Shane | July 18, 2008 at 09:02 AM
I liked the ad, and as a woman I wasn't offended. The ad also made me REALLY hungry, so it was quite effective.
Posted by: Barzooka | July 18, 2008 at 09:42 AM
why was my previous comment not approved? I said "the only people who take offense to ads like this are religious fundamentalist?" ...and if you work in the industry, you should know this is a common truth.
Posted by: Shane | July 18, 2008 at 05:45 PM
Shane - your comments came through fine.
Posted by: Cherryflava | July 21, 2008 at 07:37 AM
Yes the ad is offensive. If it is to be aired it should be during the late hours. It is not ideal for children viewing. But Steers have gotten the reaction they wanted from us as we are here talking about the ad.
Posted by: Newser | July 21, 2008 at 09:40 AM
The ad doesn't offend me, it just bores me because it's so crappy: the normal slapstick standard of advertising I have come to expect from 14-year-old copywriters. But what does annoy me is your poll. If I click the 'disgusting' option, it makes me sound like St. Christine of Randburg. If I click the other option, it makes me sound like Jason Wankhard in Fourways. How about an in-between choice? For example:
- This doesn't really offend me; it's just incredibly inane. Oh, and whoever wrote it needs to spend some time in his bedroom with a dirty magazine and a box of tissues.
Posted by: Juno | July 25, 2008 at 12:17 AM
i like the ads. there is nothing wrong with putting sex in the ad. if it sells then it is good.
Posted by: take surveys online | March 29, 2009 at 07:57 PM