Sexually demeaning Irish Broadband advertising

bmaxi

jester77 wrote:

I think it's fairly obvious that the OP works for this company (or their marketing company) and is using the boards as a viral marketing tool, this thread should be locked. It's a very poor attempt by the OP to try and market this as offensive as even the most humourless person wouldn't even consider this in any way offensive. :rolleyes:

I tend to disagree. Why then the fit of pique when Mods moved the post from Politics to Consumer Issues where, imo and no offence, it is more likely to reach a wider audience?
I also detect, in his/her reply to my previous post, an element of snobbery, the use of the word onanism rather than masturbation or good old fashioned wa*k is designed to put plebs in their place. The implication that "This sort of thing" is alright in the Star or the Sun but not in the "Business pages" of whatever hallowed publication he/she reads.
If I'm wrong, then all I can say is congratulations on a brilliant stroke.
Incidentally, I'm not sure I'd be interested in seeing Pamela Anderson's nipples over me porridge, they're probably on her back by now.

haz

bmaxi wrote:

I also detect, in his/her reply to my previous post, an element of snobbery, the use of the word onanism rather than masturbation or good old fashioned wa*k is designed to put plebs in their place.

"That sort of thing" was called onanism, but I see it has indeed been modernised (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm - paragraph 2352). Likewise, my reference to newspapers is that content that is appropriate in the context of one may well offend in another. I would not be complaining about this advert if it was in the Sun, Star or any paper I expected similar content. I would, and do, complain when I see similar content in context I do not expect it.

However, and the point of complaining, is "that sort of thing" is now unapologetically widespread, appearing in banner and textually centred images in all forms of web communication. Firefox didn't stop this one.

Caryatnid

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

How about the meteor ads...>? Now THAT is demenaing to women. And men.

Hear hear.

phantom_lord

haz wrote:

The following advertising image for "The perfect girlfriend in a box - never gets 'a headache'" for Irish Broadband, from RTE News Online, is offensive and sexually demeaning.

http://www.irishbroadband.ie/girlfriendinabox/main.html

http://adserver.adtech.de/adlink|536|1123922|0|105|AdId=1209549;BnId=1;itime=73137105;nodecode=yes;link=http://www.irishbroadband.ie/girlfriendinabox

http://a1767.g.akamai.net/v/1767/2939/7d/imageserv.adtech.de/apps/205/Ad1209549St3Sz105Sq398596V0Id1/gf_island_200x200.gif

i loled. thanks op...

Skud

is it me or did they rip off ads? like carlsberg comes to mind

bmaxi

haz wrote:

" (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm - paragraph 2352). .

If this is indicative of your preferred choice of reading matter (and I intend no slur in this), then it is not hard to see where you are coming from. The notion that the ad is out of context with the publication is another matter, it is a business, advertising a product, in the media.
If,however unlikely, the Pope were to promote the merits of Irish Broadband in bringing religion to the masses via the Internet, within the pages of the Sun, would you consider the content of the ad to be out of context with the publication? Would you campaign to have it withdrawn?

haz

bmaxi wrote:

If this is indicative of your preferred choice of reading matter (and I intend no slur in this), then it is not hard to see where you are coming

I am not campaigning to have anything withdrawn by anyone - there are more effective means for that. I am sure my preferred reading matter includes material that would offend readers here, but I don't post it here. I am stating that the representation of a human being as a saleable, ever-ready, boxed commodity is offensive and sexually demeaning, and inappropriate within the State broadcaster's business news pages. I won't comment on the level of misunderstanding of my own motives / beliefs / annoyance. I will comment on the intolerance of the pervasive view that nobody has the right to be offended or to express offence any longer, just put up with whatever tastelessness surrounds them.

I would like advertising content, including sidebar and contextual web advertising, to be more appropriate to context - which detracts in no way from anyone else's freedoms (other than their perceived right to cause gratuitous offence).

aidan_walsh

inappropriate within the State broadcaster's business news pages.

It was an ad sent to the RTE website by an independent third party ad service. Its not RTEs fault.

I would like advertising content, including sidebar and contextual web advertising, to be more appropriate to context

Wouldn't we all. And there are many people working on it, but unless you have something to add to their efforts, or are willing to ask RTE and other websites to change their policies, what can you do?

Anyway, how do you know the context was deemed incorrect? An advert for an Irish business sent to the Business page of an Irish website doesn't ring any alarm bells to me regarding relevancy.

Next time, Ad-Block it and move on.

haz

aidan_walsh wrote:

Wouldn't we all. And there are many people working on it, but unless you have something to add to their efforts, or are willing to ask RTE and other websites to change their policies, what can you do?

Amazing - 39 posts on and someone addresses the issue, not my imagined personal characteristics!

bmaxi

haz wrote:

I am stating that the representation of a human being as a saleable, ever-ready, boxed commodity is offensive and sexually demeaning, and inappropriate within the State broadcaster's business news pages.

This is purely subjective. If the consensus within these pages were applied on a national level then the "We" who are the State do not share your opinion and, by extension, "We" don't object to it's being aired by the State's broadcaster.

dr.bollocko

Every single ad featuring a male on tv has some barely human hairy ****stick Demi-gorilla falling over, ****ing up and generally acting stupid for the benefit of making women everywhere seem incredible, ingenious, smart sophisticates. Every single ad featuring a woman has some waif-thin rake of a supermodel whoring out gawdy crap to the masses and hawking goods by selling on insecurities and negative self image. Advertising as a whole is damning and destroying all humanity in this world ad by ad, day by day.

We are advertising idiocy to idiots through every possible means of media. Busses, billboards, shops, radios, speakers, tv's, the internet, newspapers, magazines, comics, cards, clothes, the virus of advertising has the world in its slimey feverish grasp and is slowly squeezing our balls until our dollarsigned eyes pop out with a pot of hidden gold.
Advertising is responsible for dumbing down the world.. I applaud the OP for standing up on this one, but if you think thats a problem, the real problem of advertising is like the atlantic ocean. What you have identified here is an infrequently dripping tap in an under-used kitchen in a house full of deaf people.

haz

bmaxi wrote:

This is purely subjective

It is not purely subjective. The ASAI code states:

2.16 Marketing communications should respect the dignity of all persons and should avoid causing offence on grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the traveller community.

http://www.asai.ie/code.asp

The Equal Status Act 2000 states:

(4) Sexual harassment takes place where a person .... (c) subjects the victim to any act or conduct with sexual connotations, including spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material, where (i) the act, request or conduct is unwelcome to the victim and could reasonably be regarded as offensive, humiliating or intimidating to him or her, or (ii) the victim is treated differently by reason of his or her rejection of or submission to, as the case may be, the act, request or conduct or it could reasonably be anticipated that the victim would be so treated.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA8Y2000S11.html

The image of placing a girlfriend in a box for the instant gratification of a purchaser would appear to me to more than meet these criteria. RTE is not (under current practice) a conduit, it is a publisher and therefore liable for all content including advertising disseminated on behalf of other parties.

bmaxi

haz wrote:

It is not purely subjective. The ASAI code states:

http://www.asai.ie/code.asp

The Equal Status Act 2000 states:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA8Y2000S11.html

The image of placing a girlfriend in a box for the instant gratification of a purchaser would appear to me to more than meet these criteria. RTE is not (under current practice) a conduit, it is a publisher and therefore liable for all content including advertising disseminated on behalf of other parties.

I'm sorry to appear so thick but could somebody identify the supposed victim in these ads. From what I've seen, nobody appears to be under any duress, quite the opposite I'd say. As to the ASAI code I don't see the relevance, you obviously do so I say again, subjective.

aidan_walsh

The image of placing a girlfriend in a box for the instant gratification of a purchaser

But not the "boyfriend in a box"? Interesting...

Out of curiousity, are you female by any chance?

haz

aidan_walsh wrote:

But not the "boyfriend in a box"? Interesting...

Irish Broadband do also sell a boyfriend-in-a-box" who "includes new, improved 'listening feature'", "comes with own vacuum", "back-rubs and tea-making a speciality", buys you shoes and spanks you when you push his button. The girlfriend "features off-button and only 1 mood", "Hottie friend", "accessories available" and "laughs at your jokes every time".

Yes, I probably would have blocked the boyfriend popup without comment - advertising imagery of men is also offensive (see dr.bollocko's excellent post above), but I'll leave that to others.

fly_agaric

Haz wrote:

I could contact the ASAI (in fact that is one of my hobbies, with 100% of my complaints upheld)

I salute you!;)

dr bollocko wrote:

We are advertising idiocy to idiots through every possible means of media.

(LOL) You'd think such people wouldn't buy "idiocy" when they have so much of it already.

Haz wrote:

I'll leave that to others.

Like who?
Have you really managed to reproduce "memetically" so that some of the little mini-mes filled with your inspiration can share the workload of complaints to the ASAI?

haz

fly_agaric wrote:

Have you really managed to reproduce "memetically" so that some of the little mini-mes filled with your inspiration can share the workload

Which of us were you asking?

More seriously, the point is out there for people to reject, and then they can boast to their girlfriends about it....

Aoife-FM104

haz, if you're for real, you've got too much time on your hands.

I see from your other posts you like to complain about things.

Get a hobby!

Theta

I don't really see the problem tbh, It's an ad that plays on a well known stereotype and a mildly humorous ad at that. This ad is not going to have major social implications on how women should be treated it will be simply brushed off as a harmless joke. So what’s your problem??

What annoys me is when people complain about ads they deem offensive and get them removed from view of the general public. If you deem something to be offensive just don't view it. It's as simple as that!

haz

irlmarc wrote:

What annoys me is when people complain about ads they deem offensive and get them removed from view of the general public. If you deem something to be offensive just don't view it. It's as simple as that!

That is my entire point - I want to live in a world where racists, sexists, unionists, nationalists, pro-life, pro-choice, Darwinians, creationists, Jihadis, neo-colonialists and any other flavour of thought can be expressed in context (some of these have no free expression - I would prefer their voices to their violence). But I do not wish to have an adverisement placed, without any relevance, in the centre of a text I have chosen to read. I block the popups and they change the server, there is no option to "don't view it" as there is with a printed publication. There are plenty of contexts where offensive and sexually demeaning advertisements would not cause offence, RTE's business pages is not one of them.

Fenster

Haz is either astroturf or someone with even less of a social life than I have. :[

shane86

haz wrote:

The following advertising image for "The perfect girlfriend in a box - never gets 'a headache'" for Irish Broadband, from RTE News Online, is offensive and sexually demeaning.

http://www.irishbroadband.ie/girlfriendinabox/main.html

http://adserver.adtech.de/adlink|536|1123922|0|105|AdId=1209549;BnId=1;itime=73137105;nodecode=yes;link=http://www.irishbroadband.ie/girlfriendinabox

http://a1767.g.akamai.net/v/1767/2939/7d/imageserv.adtech.de/apps/205/Ad1209549St3Sz105Sq398596V0Id1/gf_island_200x200.gif

Oh jaysus christ. Someone post that "Iron My Shirt Bitch" photo from the Humour board please, that will give them something to cry about

Honestly, I cant believe anyone could be arsed reporting an ad to the regulator. Or reporting anything on tv/radio to any regulator (except for Adrian Kennedy. Listening to it is like getting drunk alone, it seems grand at the time but you regret it later on) I suppose you got rid of those funny Hunky Dory bus shelter ads. Its because of your ilk potentially complaining that RTE shows a A Prayer at Bedtime instead of Amsterdam Anal Angels 7 at midnight. Off to Joe Duffy with ye.


Yer one in the ad is savage, gives me a severe raging horn.

haz

shane86 wrote:

Yer one in the ad is savage, gives me a severe raging horn.

According to the Sunday Business Post, yer one is Orla O'Rourke.

SBP reckons this is a clever viral marketing campaign conducted through boards.ie (!) and other forums in the Media & Marketing section "Irish Broadband ad is global hit" and pretty lame in the Last PostFirlfriends online. The Last Post reckons the broadband modem / girlfriend thing is because "Presumably because they’re full of information and always on. Or possibly because they keep promising you a connection and once you actually have them installed you can’t get rid of them."

I don't think this is a Joe Duffy or a regulator issue at all, it is about context and the selective targetting of internet advertising to minimise offense. To take a real-world example, if two people engage in an intimate act then it is neither offensive nor indecent, even in a public place. It is only when observed that the intimacy becomes offensive, or in the case of two men, grossly indecent (thanks to the grossly inequitable http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993_20.html Sexual Offences Act 1993, s3-4). The offensiveness reflects the degree of certainty with which a bystander might observe and be offended by the intimate act - for instance, an officer in the course of legal duties is less likely to be able to claim offence. It is up to people to choose when and where they are intimate in order to avoid causing unnecessary offence.

At what point do you raise these matters? a) a lads mag called "Gobbler" in Easons adjacent to the children's comics; b) a pornographic magazine in your convenience store called "Schoolgirl Sex Sessions"; c) a health product with false claims; d) some adverts have no place in decent society and should be banned altogether; e) grow up and get on with life, leave advertisers to sell their stuff any way they like? (I prefer b, c & d).

This advert is for a product which offers an always-on, boxed girlfriend for sale may reasonably be assumed to offend anyone of similar circumstances in whom restraint, sexual demands and payment for service might provoke fear or humiliation. It does not matter what that fear or humiliation is grounded upon, nor what was intended by the author. Where such fear or humiliation differentially affects the uptake of goods or services, it is discrimination.

The majority of posters seem to believe nobody has any right to be offended, nor to discuss it when they see offence. I have used advertisements for years in work and have discussed this one with people in middle age and in transition year, who are unanimously agreed that it is predictably offensive. Have you noticed that no sexually provocative advertisements appear on public bus shelters or in public transport, where a different voluntary code applies? I don't think the Doritos ads ("She's only after you for your Doritos") were in the bus shelter (Adshell) but on the walls adjacent (JCDecaux).

One earlier respondent has been slapped by his real-life girlfriend, two were refused sex and one will never, ever get breakfast in bed again - that is four people who have learned that fun is not always harmless.

Fenster wrote:

Haz is either astroturf or someone with even less of a social life than I have.

My social life is bounded by certain staff-imposed restrictions alluded to in an earlier post, although they did take me to see that new Khazak government information film about the US and A at the weekend - very interesting insights. Surely you mean space cadet?

Aoife-FM104

It saddens me that Ireland is so sexually repressed that a conservative, boring advert like this gets people talking.

eth0_

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

It saddens me that Ireland is so sexually repressed that a conservative, boring advert like this gets people talking.

What planet do you live on Aoife? Are you living in a nunnery? This is 2006, Ireland is not 'sexually repressed' anymore.

Aoife-FM104

eth0_ wrote:

What planet do you live on Aoife? Are you living in a nunnery? This is 2006, Ireland is not 'sexually repressed' anymore.

LOL

Come on, Ireland is still screwed.

Porn.ie is banned, protestors outside Stringfellows, no sex education in school, prostitution considered immoral, illegal for sex shops to have vibrators in their window display, etc.

haz

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

Porn.ie is banned, protestors outside Stringfellows, no sex education in school, prostitution considered immoral, illegal for sex shops to have vibrators in their window display, etc.

Try .com, or .org, or .info, or .ru, or .tv - it isn't hard to find and there isn't any block on them, or on Sky or on E13 hardcore subscription pornography. The protesters outside Stringfellows are employees of Bord Failte, tourists on stag nights go crazy getting photographed with them. Do you really want vibrators on public display? Or pants? Or haemorrhoid lotion? They are all easily available for anyone who wants them.

No sex education, victimisation of sex workers and being screwed up, I definitely agree they are huge problems. But I don't think any of the thread is about sexual repression. It is about being exposed to things at times and in places that you don't choose and that might reasonably offend - the (presumably male) posts about advertisers images of men being thick, dirty, tasteless, congenitally unfaithful or addicted to danger and stupid amounts of alcohol, for instance. Combining unhealthy gender stereotyping with no sex education could lead kids into risky sexual behaviour, STDs, public displays of sexual intimacy and damaging personal relationship - oops, it already happened.

I'd be wary that what might be termed "moral incontinence" could encourage some plonker like Minister Michael McDowell to think about regulating kids sexual behaviour, newspaper reporting, terrestrial television and advertising - oops, it already happened.

Aoife-FM104

haz wrote:

Try .com, or .org, or .info, or .ru, or .tv - it isn't hard to find and there isn't any block on them, or on Sky or on E13 hardcore subscription pornography.

.com etc, sky etc are not Irish. We are talking about Ireland.

haz wrote:

The protesters outside Stringfellows are employees of Bord Failte, tourists on stag nights go crazy getting photographed with them.

LOL what nonsense

haz wrote:

Do you really want vibrators on public display? Or pants? Or haemorrhoid lotion?

What is so offensive about a vibrator, pants or haemorrhoid lotion? They are just as much a part of this world as everything else.

haz wrote:

No sex education, victimisation of sex workers and being screwed up, I definitely agree they are huge problems. But I don't think any of the thread is about sexual repression. It is about being exposed to things at times and in places that you don't choose and that might reasonably offend - the (presumably male) posts about advertisers images of men being thick, dirty, tasteless, congenitally unfaithful or addicted to danger and stupid amounts of alcohol, for instance. Combining unhealthy gender stereotyping with no sex education could lead kids into risky sexual behaviour, STDs, public displays of sexual intimacy and damaging personal relationship - oops, it already happened.

I agree with you a bit on the above, but I think this thread IS about sexual repression. Why someone would find such a silly, lame advert offensive is beyond me.

It can only be offensive if you are unconfortable with sex / flirtation / etc.

haz wrote:

I'd be wary that what might be termed "moral incontinence" could encourage some plonker like Minister Michael McDowell to think about regulating kids sexual behaviour, newspaper reporting, terrestrial television and advertising - oops, it already happened.

Regulating "speech" is always a bad idea.

Agree whole heartedly about Minister Michael McDowell being a plonker!!

haz

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

.com etc, sky etc are not Irish. We are talking about Ireland.

You don't need a bunch of culchy fleadhanna going at it hammer and tongs in front of a peat fire, do you? On RTÉ or an Irish domain? Actually, I think RTÉ see this as their remit, as if a complete absence of sexual continence is a way of exorcising some horrid sexually repressed past. And you can buy "genuine Irish" pornography too - ask the Stringfellows protestors where to get some.

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

What is so offensive about a vibrator, pants or haemorrhoid lotion? They are just as much a part of this world as everything else.

Nothing, but you still wouldn't want them in your cornflakes (epecially the big, hairy mens pants I'm thinking of) or watch adverts for them while you eat your cornflakes. Well, I wouldn't anyway. I'd sell the telly.

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

It can only be offensive if you are unconfortable with sex / flirtation / etc.

There isn't any sex / flirtation or etc in the Irish Broadband adverts - they depict a human being, in a box, for sale, who is always available to serve the buyer. To serve sexually in the case of the girl.

Aoife-FM104 wrote:

Regulating "speech" is always a bad idea.

Regulating our speech is a really good idea, it makes us social animals. It is always a bad idea when someone steps in and regulates it for us.

SeanW

I must admit I'm having a very hard time taking the OPs complaint seriously. I visited the interactive flash ad a couple of months ago (after reading another boards complaint) and I really don't see the problem, especially since the ad is balanced with a "Boyfriend in a box"

If haz is coming at this from the perspective of a feminist, then she needs to seriously lighten up on the PC fascist nonsense. Besides there is so much TV and advertising that is demeaning to men and is never complained about. So even if the IBB ad were not balanced, in the greater scheme it wouldn't be a big deal

There isn't any sex / flirtation or etc in the Irish Broadband adverts - they depict a human being, in a box, for sale, who is always available to serve the buyer. To serve sexually in the case of the girl.

Come on; get real. Do you really think anyone's going to take that seriously?