AD MEN ADAPT TOCHANGING TIMES

Irrational Times“ All the work we’ve done so far”

LAST MINUTE EDITION

ADVERTISEHERE!

CALL 0800-123476

FOR DETAILS

In relation to the theme ‘Time’, we have chosen to look at how the ad-men and the advertising agen-cies they work for have had to adapt the way they work and the work they make to conform to the social and cultural cli-mate of the period they were part of.We will use examples of work to visually represent these changes, and will look at how the approachs and final outcomes have changed.The timescale we have chosen to cover is from the 50’s to the present day. Within this we have split our group into 3 to concentrate our efforts on specific periods. These are 50’s to 60’s, 70’s to 80’s and 90’s to the pres-ent day.

TIME

GRAEME BATEMAN / LLOYD PARKER / CHARLES VAN DER ESSER / MAISIE DUNCAN-ANTOINE / ROB COLQHOUN

RELEVANT NOTES FROM “THE RISE & FALL OF THE AD MAN”50’s. Ad agencies were run by ex-army officer types who were posh, educated fellows.. The ads they produced were uninteresting, formal, and un-creative, and were viewers were communicat-ed to in quite a patronising tone.. The agencies were run by the suits, and the products were marketed in a very matter-of-fact way, with no gloss or spruce, but that isn’t to say they were truthful however.60’s. Big players of the period -. Alan Parker. Saatchi & Saatchi. Doyle Dane Bernbach (DDB). New talent started coming in. Young people, from all sorts of backgrounds. It didn’t matter who you were or where you were from as long as you were good, essentially.. Advertising became as interesting & dominant as the journalistic content in a magazine (this still seems to be the case today). They knew they had to make people laugh - People knew adverts were there to sell them something, but if you could entertain them whilst doing so, the selling thing didn’t seem so bad, or became subconscious.Continued on page 3

DOLCE & GABBANA FORCED TO PULL AD OVER GANG-RAPE COMPLAINTS. Full story page 2

OTHER NOTES. Being ‘the best beer in the world’ is obviously a rath-er hard thing to verify as fact, so they added ‘probably to cleverly skirt around this problem. This turns the statement into an opinion. This tagline was created by Saatchi & Saatchi in 1973.. In 1961 the Advertising Association created the Com-mittee of Advertising Practice that drafted the British Code of Advertising Practice.. The following year Advertising Standards Authority was set up by the industry ‘to adjudicate on complaints that advertisements had breached the new Code.’. Smoking advertising in the 50’s used health benefits as one of it’s main selling points. For example, one advert stated that you didn’t need to see have an opera-tion to fix your sore throat; simply smoke the brand’s cigarettes. They also included doctors on the adverts, saying things like ‘more doctors smoke Camel that any other.’ This is obviously completely wrong as with today’s medical knowledge we know that smoking in fact seriously damages your throat and other organs in your body, and all medical practicioners would ad-vise against smoking, if you wanted to preserve your health. Socially you will find today that the majority of people don’t smoke, and are somewhat against it, whereas pre-1960’s or so most people did smoke.

Continued from front page. The advertisement by Dolce and Gabbana gives the impression of ‘gang-rape’ as image depicts a bare-chested man pinning down a woman in a black bathing suit, while the other man to look on. Woman rights groups were angry at this insulting advert including the National organisation for woman (now) in the United States. Because of the amount of complaints Italy pulled the ad from all Italian publications on wed 7th march 2007.The designers Stefano Gabaana and Domencio Dolce decided to pull the ad world-wide. They said ‘They didn’t mean to offend woman’“It was never our purpose to cause any controversy and instigate violence against woman’ The image was meant to ‘recall an erotic dream, a sexual game’Kim Gandy (now president) opinion on the matter thinks ‘it is a provocative ad, but is provoking things that really are not what we want to have provoked. We don’t need any more violence.However a fashion image, that are presented to be unusual and different really promote violence?

FASHION HOUSE REMOVE CONTROVER-SIAL AD FROM MAGAZINE DUE TO GANG-RAPE IMPLICATIONS

REVIEW OF 1986 BASF AD-VERTThis BASF advert successfully highlights the insuffi-

cient advertising regulations that were present before

the 1988 Control of Misleading Advertisements Regu-

lation. The advert shows a 3.5” floppy disk having a

hammer, a mug and a ball of paper being thrown at

it. As well as this the disk is being struck by lighten-

ing with the caption “unlimited protection against the

hostile world” This may infact be the most optimistic

advert ever made as if you have ever used a floppy

disk you would know how unreliable they are and how

prone to corrupting, a picture showing this floppy disk

being held in an almost godly position ready to deflect

the missiles coming its way is ridiculous. An advert

this misleading would almost certainly be banned to-

day.

A good modern day example of this type of mis-

leading advertising could be the banned Apple iPhone

advert from june of 2008. The advert shows the iphone

seamlessly browsing through the internet with no load

times or lag, there were several complaints sent into

the advertising watchdogs to get the add banned as

people complained that this sort of speed was beyond

the iphones capabilities In my opinion apples mistruth

is very minor compared to the BASF adverts claims,

yet in 1986 nothing was said about it.

REVIEW OF A 1967 CAR ADVERTISEMENTThis is a typical example of an advert designed by a large agency, and the design, approach and voice are consistent with many of the ads produced throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.The tagline “the perfect car for a dirty weekend” typifies the image and lifestyle of the ad-men at the time. They did what they wanted, and felt they could be risque and challenging at the expense of the client. I mean, I personally wouldn’t associ-ate the style, qualities and perception of this car with either a raunchy weekend or rally-driving.

RELEVANT NOTES FROM “THE RISE & FALL OF THE AD MAN”Continued from front page. . Amazingly, the public at the time wanted more advertising; such was it’s boom-ing popularity. Contrast this to today, where most peo-ple are sick of advertising.. “I think there should be more adverts; especially on the BBC” - quote from an interviewee in the street from the period.70’s. The real advertising boom began in the 70’s.. Ad-agencies turned themselves into brands to appeal to clients. Saatchi & Saatchi pioneered this.. The main themes for advertisers were escapism & aspiration. This is what they tried to ‘sell’ to the con-sumers.. Branding = Reputation.80’s. Advertising meets politics for the first time (Saatchi & Saatchi + Thatcher’s Conservative Party).. Agencies held the power. They could pick and choose their clients, say no to their clients, fire their clients etc. This has changed completely today.. The advertising world was hugely excessive during this period.. When Saatchi & Saatchi tried to by Midlands Bank, The City/The Establishment felt they had overstepped the mark, and advertising was becoming too big for its boots.. The recession hit, and suddenly the bloated agencies weren’t the ones in control anymore. The power had shifted back to the client, who because they had to tighten their belts could be more forceful with agen-cies.90’s. Post-recession.. Advertising had reverted back to how it was in the 50’s, when it was run by men in suits.. To this day they are still run by managers & accoun-tants.. Profit first, creativity second.. The biggest change of the last 20 years - “Back then 10% of the work I did was international. Today around 90% of my work is international.”

50’s & 60’s ADVERTISING

COW & GATE ADVERTS BANNED BY ADVERTISING STAN-DARDS AUTHORITY DUE TO MISLEADING HEALTH CLAIMS

Very recently the Ad-vertising Standards Authority(ASA) had to remove advertising campaigns for two baby milk products for mis-leading consumers over claims that they “support a child’s immune system.According to the ASA the two banned adverts have not enough evidence to support the two baby formula adverts’ claims. It received complaints from the National Child-birth Trust that the Cow & Gate ad and Milupa Aptamil misleadingly im-plied that the follow-on milk could “boost the im-mune system of children or babies”.

The degree of misleading information or in fact hints to misleading information in this advert is minimal when compared to that of Dr Battys asthma cigarettes ad-vert of ….. The advert promises all sorts of wonderful cures for different aliments saysing “for your health” and letting us know that they are a temporary cure for asthma. The interesting thing about this is that back when this advert was produced the advertisers probably didn’t no any better, this isn’t to say that they actually thought the cigarettes would help you but I do not believe they didn’t know how bad they were and as they were unaware of the detrimental affects of nicotine and in fact many of the other drugs advertised there was no way they could be moni-tored or removed from public airing. This goes some way to suggest the naivety of The advertisers of the time, unfortunately we will never know how if they had have known the impacts of smoking would the adverts have been the same? What we do know is that cigarette advertising carried on for a long while into the future without them finally being banned in 1992.

THE LAWWe are very interested in looking into how adverts have social and morally changed as time goes on and so researching the law surrounding them is vital.

988 No. 915

CONSUMER PROTECTION

The Control of Mislead-ing Advertisements Reg-ulations 1988Made 23rd May 1988Coming into force 20th June 1988

Whereas the Secretary of State is a Minister des-ignated[1]for the purpos-es of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972[2] in relation to measures relating to the control of advertising;

And whereas a draft of these Regulations has been approved by a reso-lution of each House of Parliament pursuant to section 2(2) of and para-graph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to that Act;

Now, therefore, the Secretary of State in ex-ercise of the powers con-ferred on him by section 2(2) of that Act and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf hereby makes the following Reg-ulations:Citation and commence-ment1. These Regulations may be cited as the Con-trol of Misleading Ad-vertisements Regulations 1988 and shall come into force on 20th June 1988.Interpretation2.—(1) In these Regulations— “advertisement” means any form of repre-sentation which is made in connection with a trade, business, craft or profes-sion in order to promote the supply or transfer of goods or services, im-movable property, rights or obligations; “broadcast ad-vertisement” means any advertisement included or proposed to be included in any programme or teletext

transmission broadcast by the IBA and includes any advertisement included or proposed to be included in a licensed service by the reception and imme-diate re-transmission of broadcasts made by the IBA; “Cable Authority” means the authority men-tioned in section 1(1) of the Cable and Broadcast-ing Act 1984[3]; “court”, in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, means the High Court, and, in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session; “Director” means the Director General of Fair Trading; “IBA” means the In-dependent Broadcasting Authority mentioned in section 1(1) of the Broad-casting Act 1981[4]; “licensable ser-vice” has the meaning given by Section 2(2) of the Cable and Broadcast-ing Act 1984; “licensed service” means a licensable ser-vice in respect of which the Cable Authority has granted a licence pursu-ant to section 4 of the Ca-ble and Broadcasting Act 1984; “publication” in re-lation to an advertisement means the dissemina-tion of that advertisement whether to an individual person or a number of persons and whether oral-ly or in writing or in any other way whatsoever, and “publish” shall be construed accordingly. (2) For the pur-poses of these Regula-tions an advertisement is misleading if in any way, including its presentation, it deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and if, by reason of its deceptive nature, it is likely to affect their economic behaviour or, for those reasons, in-jures or is likely to injure a competitor of the per-son whose interests the advertisement seeks to promote.

(3) In the applica-tion of these Regulations to Scotland for referenc-

es to an injunction or an interlocutory injunction there shall be substituted references to an interdict or an interim interdict re-spectively.

Application 3.— (l) These Regula-tions do not apply to— (a) the follow-ing advertisements issued or caused to be issued by or on behalf of an autho-rised person or appointed representative, that is to say— or on behalf of an authorised person or ap-pointed representative, that is to say— (i) investment advertisements; and (ii) any other advertisements in respect of investment business, except where any such advertisements relate ex-clusively to any matter in relation to which the au-thorised person in ques-tion is an exempted per-son; and (b) advertisements of a description referred to in section 58(1)9d) of the Financial Services Act 1986[5], except where any such advertisements consist of or any part of the matters referred to in section 58(1)(d)(ii) of that Act as being required or permitted to be published by an approved exchange under Part V of that Act.(2) In this regulation “ap-pointed representative”, “approved exchange”, “authorised person”, “ex-empted person”, “invest-ment advertisement” and “investment business” have the same meanings as in the Financial Ser-vices Act 1986.No advertisement may directly or by implication mislead about any mate-rial fact or characteristic of a product or service

WHAT IS A MIS-LEADING AD-VERTISEMENT?An advert is misleading if it deceives or is likely to deceive its audience and affect their economic decision-making. This also applies if it harms or is likely to harm a com-petitor of the organisa-

tion placing the advertise-ment.

An advert will be likely to affect the economic deci-sion-making of readers if, for example, it persuades them to part with money.

A misleading advertise-ment can be a spoken statement - eg, given by a sales representative, in person or over the phone. It does not have to be in writing.

An advert can be decep-tive in various ways, for example, if it:

* contains a false state-ment of fact - this may be possible to prove or dis-prove by evidence * conceals or leaves out important facts * promises to do some-thing but there is no in-tention of carrying it out * creates a false impres-sion, even if everything stated in it may be liter-ally true.

WHAT IS A MIS-LEADING AD-VERTISEMENT?Under the regulations, an advert is comparative if it identifies - either plainly or by implication - a com-petitor or their goods or services. This kind of ad-vertising is allowed, but only if it is not mislead-ing and meets a number of other conditions:

* it compares goods or services on a like-for-like basis * it objectively com-pares representative fea-tures of those goods and services, which may in-clude price * it does not create con-fusion in the market re-garding the identity of the advertiser and its compet-itors. This includes mat-ters such as competing trademarks, trade names, goods or services * it does not exploit the reputation of a trademark, trade name, etc, of a com-petitor or of the place of origin of competing prod-ucts * it does not pres-ent goods or services as imitations or replicas of

goods or services bearing a protected trademark or trade name.

When a comparative ad-vertisement refers to a special offer it must also include further informa-tion in a clear and un-equivocal way. That in-cludes the date on which the offer ends or, where appropriate, the period during which the special offer applies.