Tampax ad banned

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

A fine example of someone seeing what they wanted to see, jumping the gun and getting offended.
I suggest you re-read my post, because I never actually mentioned the ad in question nor did I give my thoughts on it. And you have the audacity to imply that I’m an extremist, while completely misrepresenting my post :rolleyes:
I was replying to a post that said 8/9 year olds don’t need to know about periods because it’s inappropriate, which I vehemently disagree with on all counts.
They do need to know.

A fine example of some people seeing what they want to see indeed. The poster was making the point that this particular advertisement is inappropriate for 8 and 9 year olds. They did not say anything about periods or whether or not 8 or 9 year olds need to know or don’t need to know about periods.

The particular advertisement in question is just a bad advertisement in many peoples opinions, that’s all anyone is really saying. It does nothing to educate anyone about menstruation. It’s simply an advertisement for a badly designed product that needs an advertisement to explain how to use it properly. The problem then is with the fact that the product is over-engineered. Think of it like the 360 degree ball on Gillette razors now with five blades and a lubricating strip - over-engineering at it’s finest, absolutely unnecessary, and if one doesn’t see it as necessary, they’re using the product wrong.

The idea that girls and boys need to be educated about menstruation is a completely separate issue from the idea that anyone actually needs to use applicator tampons in the first place, when there are dozens of alternatives available, far more comfortable, hygienic and as I’ve been told by my friends who use them - better for the environment too!

There absolutely is merit to the argument that young girls need to know about menstruation so it’s not scary for them when it does happen, but from talking to women, their experiences of menstruation are as individual as they are - no two women’s experiences are identical. Similar, absolutely, but they need to be able to talk about it from their perspective using language that they understand, not being told that they’re doing it wrong if they’re not shoving a foreign object far enough up their vagina, it’s cramped enough up there already :pac:

I can’t see any merit whatsoever in the argument that boys need to be educated about all the ins and outs, ups and downs of menstruation. When I received the leaflet detailing what was intending to be taught to my son about menstruation, it detailed nothing about the biology of the process itself, only stating that girls need more understanding around that time of the month. It made me laugh because it was just so basic and was just what I thought was good advice under any circumstances, never mind just when girls have their period.

The sort of wrangling that some posters have detailed of their experiences is akin to the sort of over-engineering employed by the product manufacturers in this particular instance, and their way of addressing the issues caused by using their product was to dumb it down to a level of patronising which women found offensive. Rather than learn from the experience, there are women here who are arguing as though this is yet another example of “women shaming”, “period shaming”, all the rest of it, anything to distract from the fact that the product is just a shìt product.

This is not the hill anyone should want to die on defending this nonsense. It’s tampax who needs to learn from this experience, and women who aren’t listening to other people need to learn from this experience. It’s not that anyone needs to be taught how to insert a fcuking tampon correctly, it’s that people are entitled to a bit of dignity rather than being treated as though they are too thick to understand anything.

Springfields

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Personally I thought it was a bit inappropriate for kids. It was broadcast when my 9 year old was watching tv - She didn't need to be watching that bollox

She is exactly who should be watching these ads....but I'm guessing you wont be having that conversation with her...

One eyed Jack

Springfields wrote: »

She is exactly who should be watching these ads....but I'm guessing you wont be having that conversation with her...

The main point of conversation I’d be having with anyone after watching that advertisement would be to point out that women are just not as stupid and vacuous as that advertisement portrays them to be.

It’s like the “women have tiny brains” messages of advertising campaigns from decades ago. It’s more important IMO that children are media savvy which will be of far greater use to them throughout their lives than anything they might pick up about menstruation.

Still waters

Springfields wrote: »

She is exactly who should be watching these ads....but I'm guessing you wont be having that conversation with her...

Quite a leap to make to presume they don't communicate openly with their child, could you explain how you came to that conclusion

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A fine example of some people seeing what they want to see indeed. The poster was making the point that this particular advertisement is inappropriate for 8 and 9 year olds. They did not say anything about periods or whether or not 8 or 9 year olds need to know or don’t need to know about periods.

The particular advertisement in question is just a bad advertisement in many peoples opinions, that’s all anyone is really saying. It does nothing to educate anyone about menstruation. It’s simply an advertisement for a badly designed product that needs an advertisement to explain how to use it properly. The problem then is with the fact that the product is over-engineered. Think of it like the 360 degree ball on Gillette razors now with five blades and a lubricating strip - over-engineering at it’s finest, absolutely unnecessary, and if one doesn’t see it as necessary, they’re using the product wrong.

The idea that girls and boys need to be educated about menstruation is a completely separate issue from the idea that anyone actually needs to use applicator tampons in the first place, when there are dozens of alternatives available, far more comfortable, hygienic and as I’ve been told by my friends who use them - better for the environment too!

There absolutely is merit to the argument that young girls need to know about menstruation so it’s not scary for them when it does happen, but from talking to women, their experiences of menstruation are as individual as they are - no two women’s experiences are identical. Similar, absolutely, but they need to be able to talk about it from their perspective using language that they understand, not being told that they’re doing it wrong if they’re not shoving a foreign object far enough up their vagina, it’s cramped enough up there already :pac:

I can’t see any merit whatsoever in the argument that boys need to be educated about all the ins and outs, ups and downs of menstruation. When I received the leaflet detailing what was intending to be taught to my son about menstruation, it detailed nothing about the biology of the process itself, only stating that girls need more understanding around that time of the month. It made me laugh because it was just so basic and was just what I thought was good advice under any circumstances, never mind just when girls have their period.

The sort of wrangling that some posters have detailed of their experiences is akin to the sort of over-engineering employed by the product manufacturers in this particular instance, and their way of addressing the issues caused by using their product was to dumb it down to a level of patronising which women found offensive. Rather than learn from the experience, there are women here who are arguing as though this is yet another example of “women shaming”, “period shaming”, all the rest of it, anything to distract from the fact that the product is just a shìt product.

This is not the hill anyone should want to die on defending this nonsense. It’s tampax who needs to learn from this experience, and women who aren’t listening to other people need to learn from this experience. It’s not that anyone needs to be taught how to insert a fcuking tampon correctly, it’s that people are entitled to a bit of dignity rather than being treated as though they are too thick to understand anything.

I mean there’s sanctimonious self indulgent waffle and then there’s this. The majority of your post is arguing against points I never even made.

The main point of the post I was replying to said:

The ad is not appropriate for 8 and 9 year old girls, and nothing to do with the age of mensuration that some children begin.

It has everything to do with the age mensuration starts. If children are now getting periods at age 8/9 then a conversation needs to be started about them even earlier.
You can like or dislike the Ad but the whole point was that it was opening up a dialogue in a different way.
The portrayal of smiling slim women playing tennis in white outfits is so inaccurate it’s almost offensive, and again, not representative of the experience of the vast majority of women.
Children should be hearing about these things from an early age, and making it into a secretive taboo does nothing but encourage shame and make the experience more frightening for the young girls who start them early.
It has everything to do with age of starting mensuration when one of the main reasons for getting the ad removed was that it wasn’t suitable for children.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

I mean there’s sanctimonious self indulgent waffle and then there’s this. The majority of your post is arguing against points I never even made.

What a way to start a conversation or “open up a dialogue” - characterise anyone’s opinion which doesn’t gel with yours as “self indulgent waffle”, ignore the fact that I was addressing the very point you made earlier that men should know about menstruation because they will have a relationship with women at some point in their lives.

I am a man, I have a son, neither of us have ever needed to know about menstruation nor has not knowing about it had any detrimental effect on our relationships with women.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The main point of the post I was replying to said:


It has everything to do with the age mensuration starts. If children are now getting periods at age 8/9 then a conversation needs to be started about them even earlier.
You can like or dislike the Ad but the whole point was that it was opening up a dialogue in a different way.
The portrayal of smiling slim women playing tennis in white outfits is so inaccurate it’s almost offensive, and again, not representative of the experience of the vast majority of women.
Children should be hearing about these things from an early age, and making it into a secretive taboo does nothing but encourage shame and make the experience more frightening for the young girls who start them early.
It has everything to do with age of starting mensuration when one of the main reasons for getting the ad removed was that it wasn’t suitable for children.

They said the ad was inappropriate for 8/9 year olds. I’d have gone further and said the ad was inappropriate for anyone, regardless of their age or gender. It doesn’t open up any conversation “in a different way”, it just portrays women as too stupid to use the manufacturer’s product.

I agree with you that previous advertisements were done badly and portrayed a vapid stereotype of women, well this one doesn’t do any better, it just gives out the same underlying message, differently - “women, you’re a bit thick!” It’s certainly not by any stretch representative, or even coming close to being representative of women.

You took what the poster said about the ad being inappropriate, and switched it as though they were saying conversations about menstruation with 8/9 year olds are inappropriate. I can’t think of anything more self-indulgent than failing to understand why some people are of the opinion that adult conversations are inappropriate for their children. I can’t think of anything more scary than telling a child if they’re uncomfortable with inserting a foreign object into their body, shove it up there further!

It’s true that one of the main reasons for getting the ad removed was that it was inappropriate for children, and I can see why. That says fcukall about whether or not having a conversation with their children about menstruation is or isn’t appropriate, and frankly I’d trust that parents know their own children better than some people who have their heads so far up their own arses they fail to see anything from anyone else’s point of view. But they’re not self-indulgent of course, not like Ciara Kelly for example to be so self-indulgent that she would take it upon herself to tell women to send her their tampons and she’ll deliver them personally to the ASAI -


'I would like you to send me tampons' - Ciara Kelly makes appeal over banned ad


*Jessica Yanniv has entered the chat* :pac:

Leg End Reject

joeguevara wrote: »

But I don’t think advertisements are a good way of instruction. Also it could have had an undesired effect of misleading girls to push it too far.

How could girls "push it too far"? Where do you think it'll end up?

Antares35

Some of the outrage would be more constructively directed towards genuine issues that have plagued Ireland such as institutional abuse, denying women bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, cervical check scandal etc. But no the Biddy and Mileys would rather get offended by a vagina. Nobody would be here to complain without a period! Sure didn't we all grow up thinking the things would help us rollerblade and skydive. Breach of the sale of goods and supply of services act if you ask me

myshirt

Abhorrent sexism from some women laying into men about this, coming down on them like a tonne of bricks. Including that scumbag Ciara Kelly.

No where to be seen now when it turns out it was a majority of women who complained.

The scumbags amongst the scumbags have went even further to still try spin it as a male driven issue, saying men have shamed women systemically or something else so farcical, rather than holding up their hands and admitting they were wrong.

Overheal

myshirt wrote: »

Abhorrent sexism from some women laying into men about this, coming down on them like a tonne of bricks. Including that scumbag Ciara Kelly.

No where to be seen now when it turns out it was a majority of women who complained.

The scumbags amongst the scumbags have went even further to still try spin it as a male driven issue, saying men have shamed women systemically or something else so farcical, rather than holding up their hands and admitting they were wrong.

We know what kind of "women" slagged off the ad:

Clare Kat

Antares35 wrote: »

Some of the outrage would be more constructively directed towards genuine issues that have plagued Ireland such as institutional abuse, denying women bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, cervical check scandal etc. But no the Biddy and Mileys would rather get offended by a vagina. Nobody would be here to complain without a period! Sure didn't we all grow up thinking the things would help us rollerblade and skydive. Breach of the sale of goods and supply of services act if you ask me

Or cycle around town on our bikes in teeny, tiny shorts!

One eyed Jack

Overheal wrote: »

We know what kind of "women" slagged off the ad:

That’s a very unfair characterisation of women who found the advertisement offensive. Tampax should be ashamed of the advertisement IMO because it portrays women as thick. There’s nothing in the complaints to support the idea that any of the complaints were based upon any attempt to make women feel ashamed about menstruation or talking about menstruation or talking to their children about menstruation -


Defending the decision, the chief executive of the ASAI Orla Twomey told Ciara Kelly on Thursday: "We're not saying advertising for tampons are not appropriate for teenagers, or that they're inappropriate for the wider audience or the public to see.

"And we're also not saying, I think it's important to say, that we're not saying that educational advertising - where a company seeks to provide more information about use - that in itself that that is a problem.

"It's not a problem, in this particular advertisement it was how they delivered that message is what has caused offence."


The main problem with the advertisement was how Tampax chose to deliver the message, not the message itself.

Clare Kat

myshirt wrote: »

Abhorrent sexism from some women laying into men about this, coming down on them like a tonne of bricks. Including that scumbag Ciara Kelly.

No where to be seen now when it turns out it was a majority of women who complained.

The scumbags amongst the scumbags have went even further to still try spin it as a male driven issue, saying men have shamed women systemically or something else so farcical, rather than holding up their hands and admitting they were wrong.

Wow, you seem very angry indeed. Not really helping your case for men there by referring to women as “scumbags”.

Overheal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a very unfair characterisation of women who found the advertisement offensive. Tampax should be ashamed of the advertisement IMO because it portrays women as thick.

Is that the same for any informational ad Sounds like thin grounds to pull advertising.

One eyed Jack

Overheal wrote: »

Is that the same for any informational ad Sounds like thin grounds to pull advertising.

Bit of a stretch to quantify the ad as informational but ok, yes it’s the same for any ad which portrays women as a bit thick - anyone is entitled to make a complaint to the ASAI about it, that’s exactly why they exist, to ensure that advertisers maintain certain standards in their advertising.

Portraying women as being a bit thick, falls well below any expected standard.

Overheal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bit of a stretch to quantify the ad as informational but ok, yes it’s the same for any ad which portrays women as a bit thick - anyone is entitled to make a complaint to the ASAI about it, that’s exactly why they exist, to ensure that advertisers maintain certain standards in their advertising.

Portraying women as being a bit thick, falls well below any expected standard.

I disagree with that characterization. The ad addressed legitimate concerns with using the product correctly and consumers having discomfort using them.

Many ads have been allowed that show Irish people as thick drunkos that are too thick to not drink and drive or wear seatbelts. Offensive?

One eyed Jack

Overheal wrote: »

I disagree with that characterization. The ad addressed legitimate concerns with using the product correctly and consumers having discomfort using them.

Many ads have been allowed that show Irish people as thick drunkos that are too thick to not drink and drive or wear seatbelts. Offensive?

Yes, but it’s how Tampax chose to address these legitimate concerns that was deemed to have been generally offensive on the basis of the number of complaints received by the ASAI. The ASAI has said that they are working with Tampax to ensure they better understand how to convey their message in order to meet ASAI standards -


The ASAI committee upheld complaints in relation to general offence - but rejected others on the grounds of the ad being demeaning to women, that it contained sexual innuendo or that it was unsuitable for children.

Orla Twomey, chief executive of the ASAI, told Ciara Kelly on Lunchtime Live: "We are open to working with the advertiser to see how the ad can be brought back to market - because the requirement is that it be amended or withdrawn.

...

Explaining the decision, she said: "Over the last four and a half years or so, we've received complaints about 5,200 advertisements - and in that time only seven ads had more than 60 complaints.

"So it's quite unusual for us to get this number of complaints about an advertisement.

"The complaints committee... they looked at the number of complaints and they looked at the concerns that had been expressed.

"The code requires that advertising shouldn't cause grave or widespread offence: the committee didn't consider that it had caused grave offence, but they considered that the evidence was there to show for the purposes of the code based on our experience that it was causing widespread offence".


ASAI: Tampon advert can be brought back in amended form


Your example isn’t any different than any advertisement which falls below ASAI standards or not. It would depend upon the context as to whether or not it could be deemed acceptable or not. There’s a lot I might find personally offensive, but I’d rarely bother to make a complaint about it. That doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that someone else isn’t entitled to make a complaint, and leave it to the ASAI to determine whether it falls below advertising standards or not.

Be interesting to see how Tena would advertise the attached product for example. I didn’t even know of their existence until today when I did a double take on seeing them on the shelf among the other products for men! Had to send a photo to one of my mates who’s more up on these things than I am to ask her what the fcuk are these about? Male incontinence pads, she explained. I never knew they were a thing, I’d just assumed men would visit their GP if they were experiencing those sorts of issues!

Point being - Tampax created both the problem in the first place, and then doubled down on their incompetence by attempting to suggest that rather than the issue being with their product, the issues experienced by users were their own fault. The ad wasn’t offensive to me personally. I said earlier that myself and my mates take the piss out of each other by parodying the advert, but (and this is the important thing I think you keep missing) - I can see how it is offensive to other people who aren’t me, I can see a number of reasons why they consider it offensive. I see no reason for anyone to be ashamed of making a complaint when I can see many reasons why anyone would have a legitimate complaint with what’s just a shìtty advert for a shìtty product.

AllForIt

Don't these products come with instructions.

I recall growing up being told that men specifically were very bad for reading instructions and that women were good at it. I actually believed that. Looks like that stereotype isn't true after all.

southstar

Overheal wrote: »

I disagree with that characterization. The ad addressed legitimate concerns with using the product correctly and consumers having discomfort using them.

Many ads have been allowed that show Irish people as thick drunkos that are too thick to not drink and drive or wear seatbelts. Offensive?

Those ads were in fact aimed at people who were potentially thick selfish or lazy enough to consider engaging in said life threatening behaviours .
I think most posters objections to this ad are based upon its tacky end of the pier tone and ironically a crude laddishness that some women confuse with empowerment.I wouldn't personally be for banning it but to portray those who have objections as prudish and backwards totally dishonest and misleading

2u2me

southstar wrote: »

Those ads were in fact aimed at people who were potentially thick selfish or lazy enough to consider engaging in said life threatening behaviours .
I think most posters objections to this ad are based upon its tacky end of the pier tone and ironically a crude laddishness that some women confuse with empowerment.I wouldn't personally be for banning it but to portray those who have objections as prudish and backwards totally dishonest and misleading

That infamous Gillette ad was also aimed at the lowest common denominator and it was offensive to a lot of people, especially men.

The people who didn't like that ad or found it offensive were called all sorts of names from misogynist to incel etc...

Stark

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The ASAI has said that they are working with Tampax to ensure they better understand how to convey their message in order to meet ASAI standards -

.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Be interesting to see how Tena would advertise the attached product for example.

So out of sheer curiosity (and while finding out more about the product), I decided to seek out the answer myself.

There’s the “Whoaaaaa Bodyform” version -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IedNORbu4y8

The “step by step instructional” version -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wYIs4FcUg8

The “middle ground” version -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKB3anTTioU

And the condescending “men, you’re a bit thick” version -











.

Stark

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And the condescending “men, you’re a bit thick” version -

You forgot to attach the link.

joseywhales

Am I the only one offended by all adverts, like it's a bit of an intrusion to be forced to watch an advertisement. Reminds me of clockwork orange, I have to sit here and battle unsolicited brainwashing for 5 minutes. I have a tiny little resentment Everytime.

One eyed Jack

Stark wrote: »

You forgot to attach the link.

There isn’t one, unlike the Tampax advert

Sardonicat

The instructional one you linked definitely portrayed men as thick. "Remove the adhesive paper, sticky side underwear down. "Really? Someone wouldn't remove the adhesive strip? Or would and then would apply the adhesive part to their meat and two veg? He'd do that once and once only!

One eyed Jack

Sardonicat wrote: »

The instructional one you linked definitely portrayed men as thick. "Remove the adhesive paper, sticky side underwear down. "Really? Someone wouldn't remove the adhesive strip? Or would and then would apply the adhesive part to their meat and two veg? He'd do that once and once only!

I honestly didn’t get that from the video. I thought it was just done very “matter of factly”, like a proper instructional video making no assumptions about it’s users level of ability. If Tampax had done a similar instructional video I wouldn’t have thought they were portraying women as being a bit thick either. But the way Tampax chose to do the video, they portrayed women who couldn’t use their product as being a bit thick.

Only Strawberry Milkshake so far has said the reason for the advert was because women were having difficulty using the product, so for them a step by step instructional video might have been more appropriate. It wouldn’t to my mind at least have suggested women are thick because they need instructions on how to use a product they’ve never used before.

(then again, I used write technical manuals so maybe that’s why I’m not seeing the issue )

sydthebeat

2020.08.18 – P&G Advertisement – ASAI Communication
We have received and reviewed communications that were emailed to us in which views were shared relating to the Proctor & Gamble advertisement “Tampax and Tea” and the decision of the ASAI independent Complaints Committee on complaints made about the ad.

Each communication received has been reviewed and considered by us. Commentary included disagreement and disappointment with the decision and requests included that the decision would be reviewed, reversed or that the ad would be reinstated.

Decisions on complaints are made in accordance with the ASAI Code. In this context, the Board of the ASAI have no role in either complaint assessment, investigation or adjudication. The Complaints Committee are the body responsible for complaint adjudication and they act independently of the Board and the ASAI Executive. The Complaints Committee is made up of a diverse gender and age balanced group representing broad areas of Irish society.

The decision of the Complaints Committee reflects their assessment of the complaints, the advertisers’ response and the Code requirements. In this instance the Complaints Committee considered that the ad was not in compliance with the Code. A copy of the decision and the related ASAI statement can be found on our website (https://www.asai.ie/note/asai-decision-on-the-tampax-and-tea-advertisement/).

The ASAI Code sets out a comprehensive process for requesting a review of a decision which has been made by the Complaints Committee. Any review conducted is undertaken by a totally separate and independent Review Panel. In line with European equivalent best practice , the right to apply for a review is open to the parties to the original complaint(s) , that is:

• The advertiser; and/or
• The original complainant(s)

The parties were informed about the Review Process when the Complaints Committee’s final decision was communicated to them and the parties have chosen not to apply for a review. The Complaints Committee’s decision will therefore not be reviewed and the decision remains that the ad should not run in the same format again.

Advertising that is found in breach of the Code can be published again if it is amended to bring it into compliance with the Code. The ASAI Executive is always available to work with and assist advertisers in attempting to bring advertisement into compliance with the Code

The ASAI’s continued objective is to ensure that all ads are legal, decent, honest and truthful and, over almost 40 years of operation, we have dealt with over 36,000 complaints. As a founding member of EASA, the European Advertising Standards Alliance, that has a network of 54 similar organisations worldwide, we are committed, along with other members, to an evolving, robust and coherent system of advertising self-regulation that can respond effectively to a constantly changing media and marketing environment.

We would like to thank those who submitted comments to us and for taking the time to engage with us.

ASAI Executive
18 August 2020

https://www.asai.ie/news/2020-08-18-pg_advertisement-asai_communication/

ohnonotgmail

sydthebeat wrote: »

https://www.asai.ie/news/2020-08-18-pg_advertisement-asai_communication/

i received the same link in response to a complaint i made about their decision. it seems to be a popular read as you cannot access it due to resource limits.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i received the same link in response to a complaint i made about their decision. it seems to be a popular read as you cannot access it due to resource limits.

Got the same response yesterday to my complaint. They obviously sent it to everyone who complained about the ban, everyone clicked on the link at the same time, and the ASAI, effectively DOS'ed themselves.



Even a website run off of a regular desktop would need a huge number of requests in a short period of time for it to run out of resources, which would suggest to me they got a huge number of complaints about the ban. Much more than the original 84 complaints about the ad.