This ad depresses the hell out of me
Posted in Uncategorized
Sorry, but for so many people Christmas is already a guilt-ridden consumerist nightmare that they can’t hope to afford.
This ad, with its naked smashing of those very buttons with a titanium sledgehammer, makes me feel a little bit sick.
So dad wants a totally camp diamonte encrusted D&G watch for Christmas. I think he’s got a big announcement to make round the Christmas table this year. At least it might help them forget the fact they won’t have a pot to piss in.
Fuck the illusion of santa, it’s your mother who buys all this shit. I admire the blatant consumerism in a strange way. If you look at this ad and John Lewis, this one is more true to life. The JL ad is lovely but isn’t rooted in a truth.
Kids, it’s always me, me, me.
agree. interesting that its all about getting stuff – the opposite sentiment of the john lewis ad (all about giving) – when the target audience of littlewoods is poor people and target audience of john lewis is rich. they’ve got the strategies wrong way round!
God, that’s horrible. Makes me regret ever defending advertising at dinner parties.
Disgusting. This is the product of the industry we choose to work in and dedicate our lives to.
And also a mahoosive rip…
http://rbg6.se/nintendo-holi-ds
“My lovely lovely mother” will have to borrow back Grandad’s laptop and get her flaps out on Adultwork for the rest of the year. Revolting.
I so want that D&G watch.
What’s the difference between this and the John Lewis ad (message not production values).
I agree, that’s a real emotional vacuum they’ve created there. Stuff, stuff and more stuff. When I were a lad we got one big present and two small ones and that was it. And were we happy? Were we fuck. I wanted a Chopper and an Action Man with gripping hands and realistic hair. And Kerplunk! And Crossfire. Andy Gange had one and he was way cool.
whats the matter. if youre not handing out soulless gifts en masse, even if you cant afford them and have to go in debt, youre a bad parent. if your parents dont hand out soulless gifts en masse, even if they cant afford them and have to go in debt, youre a bad kid. just work harder so you can participate in this fuck fest!
is it bad that i want to punch that lovely lovely brat in the face? really hard. great ad.
laughed at the d&g watch. most pathetic fashion brand ever.
Best Comment Award goes to Rotarrius.
“Who got into debt all just for me,
buying me shit that she saw on TV?
Spending money when she’s claiming HB –
my stupid stupid Mhuva”
Wait till you see the new offering from Argos…the Christmas Turkey’s come early this year
I frowed up!
I was once asked to write the copy for a Littlewoods Christmas brochure targeting families with poor credit ratings. APR was over 30%. I left. This is the end of my comment.
btw, random observation. i figured that if you have the money to buy all the stuff, it becomes clear that you dont need it, most of it is pointless and definitely not worth buying, let alone looting a shop for. which must be why the snobby were looking down on the looters with contempt. its not like they had better morals, they just were more experienced with pointless crap. if that doesnt justify being a snob i dont know what does.
disclosure: many were upset about the violence. so was i.
anonymous at 9:35 am. thats a nice observation. dont think the strategies are the wrong way round though. theyre just pulling the strings of the targets. if youre rich, you dont really care about the stuff itself, because you can afford it anyway and its no longer special. so it becomes all about the emotional value and reaction some crap cant provoke. and we talk about the importance of giving and blah. if you cant afford it, the crap is special. it will prvoke some strong emotional reaction on its own. the sacrifces you made for it… or something. its sick. kudos to you pieman for rejecting that job.
mary. i hate to say it again. but.
THIS ISN’T AN OUTREACH PROGRAM.
back on topic.
at least it’s christmassy. rather than a bernardo’s ad that turns out to be christmassy.
Do people really buy all this stuff for their family?? How rich are the poor these days?!
That watch is lovely – makes his eyes sparkle.
first of all, when have you said that before, gout-legs. secondly, even if you did, YOU COULDNT BE MORE WRONG. again.
apart from that this ad is not christmassy, unless christmas is a giant consumption fuck fest. which it is to you, and you are totally fine with this, and seem to endorse it, obviously. congratulations. i pity you, btw. its almost as if rory sutherland would declare he is fine with advertising land mines.
@anonymous 4. What an unsettling insight into your lifestyle.
It isn’t Christmassy.
It’s a turd wrapped in tinsel.
There’s a difference.
But hold on…isn’t that John Terry wearing the D&G watch…..?
What a load of bollocks…sort of taints Xmas for me…tossers!
And then, like the mug i am, I’ve only gone and watched the new Argos Xmas spot…fuck me what a load of bollocks that is as well!
Can’t decide which one I hate more?
Fuck it, I’m going for Argos…simply because I’m secretly coveting that very nice wrist apendage with D&G hallmarked on the face.
Later.
Like many other commenters, I too am disgusted by the sight of poor people on my computer screen. However, there is at least a genuine insight here which will resonate – that Mum is at the heart of Christmas.
Just seen the Argos ad and the aliens reminded of these little chappies from way back in ’98:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc&ob=av2e
sorry.
i thought my comment would come across as sarcastic. i’ll add one of these next time ; )
you have to admit though, that M&S have nailed the christmas ad this year.
; )
Most of the worries about advertising to poor people is probably out of kilter with the general effectiveness of advertising. i.e. omg that ad is going to make all those poor people spend all their money when they should be investing it gold or saving for their kids education. Idiots!
It is good that people in advertising take responsibility for their output. But at times they, as can the media, over egg their effectiveness. Product advertising is NOT responsible for all the ills in the world.
It is still a shit ad for other reasons.
I do find some comments about the naivety of ordinary people rather patronising at times. I do understand that it may feel like being caring or being responsible and that is not always a bad thing but I worry that it is is wrapped up in snobbery sometimes.
More grey area needed regarding where to draw the line not less.
Merry Christmas everyone.
But why should I shop at Littlewoods.com?
no amount of invective can do this justice.
advertising can’t die fast enough
well, jim, one thing.
advertising and any other media content that people watch, listen to, are surrounded by, experience, whatever, and the information it transports do shape peoples world view. it creates worlds. mine, yours, everyones. no one can escape this influence. even if you decide to cut yourself off and only talk to people, it will reach you through them. word of mouth, viral. its powerfull stuff. there is a reason why censorship is among the tools of a despote. media matters. to claim otherwise is delusional.
more grey matter needed to draw the line? or is it just a matter of callousnees? those are the questions i want answers for. they cant easily be given. the sociopath next door is on my reading list.
Hi Mary, I am certainly not denying the effect of media on people. And I agree it is unescapable. and why would you want to.?
It’s the worrying on other peoples behalf that concerns me sometimes. Sometimes.
That time I believe personally is in context here – people worrying about others but nobody said – I hate it that they are encouraging me to buy things I don’t want and don’t need and don’t have the money to buy. I am not sure how I can stop myself. I am outraged that they treat me this way.
There are clearly times when it is good to show genuine concern for others. I believe in concern, empathy and solidarity. However I also have faith in people to decide for themselves too.
Thus some grey areas, right?
It’s weird how we have little faith in the power of media when it come to us but give it an increased effect when we think of others. i.e I can watch it it and be okay – but some people can’t be trusted.
jim, i understand the points you make and agree with your notion on patronizing. but.
i am convinced that there is not enough worrying about other people. we act way too selfishly in an utterly stupid way and even applaud this route into a car crash (financial meltdown, for instance).
i am also convinced that there is not enough awareness of (and actions according to the) consequences. short term thinking, sustainability. you know the buzz words.
i am downright sick of defending rejection of responsibility with a freedom of choice argument. im sure that if you are stupidly clever enough, you can make anyone do or believe anything, even things that are bad for them. hey, its their choice. who cares. haha.
nonetheless, as mentioned above, i agree with your point about the snobbery when it comes to ‘the punter’. on the other hand, making people do something, occupying their minds, is what advertising and marcom is about. even more important to feel a sense of responsibility. of course it doesnt stop there. product is important… and if thats really shit or harmful im calling bill hicks.
but then, you can fool some people all of the time. and all people some of the time, but not all people all of the time. thats true, even more so with the internet at our fingertips. its just a pitty that some people have to pay a hefty price for being fooled. but in the end its all of us who pay (crazy mortgage deal > foreclosure || mortgage meltdown > bail outs > crisis > recession > unemployment). and that mortgage crap was just the tipping point, a symptom i guess. as is the littlewoods ad. not all of advertising is bad or responsible for all the bad in the world, of course not.
i like advertising. but that littlewoods ad is nothing i want to see more of. or maybe i do. its surely some clever and subtle anti-soulless-consumerism guerilla tactics right there, ha.
ah, yeah, and sorry for the lengthy comment. but you made me do it, jim 😉
get a room you two.
Hi Mary, I like the lengthy reply (sorry for forcing you to do it 😉 too many sound bite responses in todays world anyway. You choose to reply and I am glad you did.
I am sure we are still in disagreement.
Underlying the worry of the ability of an ad (as it should) to persuade people to do something is that it is more effective on stupid people who need protecting. But not us. It’s the yeah but what about them over there defence. Them lot.
The more that logic is followed, the more rules and the more the nanny states enters to decide what is best for us. OFCOM and ASA for example. If people are calling for intervention it is easier to legitimise it. Or we just exercise self censorship. That is often the logical conclusion of concern on others behalf. Well that and going to war….yes that was an un-called for jump.
If we worry enough on others behalf the world becomes more and more sanitised and we will get blander and blander advertising, is that possible, we are probably already there for the reasons I am trying hard to allude to.
The culture of tolerance leads to nothing but intolerance in the end where everyone has to be defended, in fear that…. well anything could happen really.
I can see that you are sick of defending freedom of choice but I believe it is the most important thing to defend. Along with defending people abilities to reason for themselves. And believes that people are able to resist an ad that is luring us to buy stuff.
The ad is shit but not on moral grounds.
not so sure we are in disagreement since we are coming from different angles towards different things, kinda.
i dont know where this assumption that it is more effective on stupid people comes from. it got nothing to do with stupidity. if anything, more with education and experience. and this got nothing to do with stupidity either. i, for example, know more about communication than my neighbor. he knows more about other things. he doesnt attempt to influence me using his knowledge though. so yeah, what about him.
i hate to say it, but if those who should indeed use their freedom of choice to ‘censor’ themselves dont do it, the nanny state has to step up. wheres the regulation of the financial market by the way.
that worrying would lead to a bland and sanitized world, and that tolerance leads to intolerance, are polemic statements and too generalistic to respond to.
forgot who said it and how, or if: ‘the only thing we should not be tolerant about is intolerance’. im adding ‘indifference’ to that.
i am not sick of defending freedom of choice. i am downright sick of defending a rejection of responsibility with “but they have the freedom of choice, them lot, over there” argument. and you can only reason for yourself within your box. that box you constructed yourself with the help of media content and direct experience – like hammering your thumb instead of the nail.
the ad is shit. on moral grounds. and they are sexist santa-deniers too. do you think i want this ad banned? i dont. id like a lot of public discourse about it.
sorry g-l, but i thought youd like to watch.
Question Mary – (you have lost me somewhat) So is the moral point that Littlewoods are attempting to flog stuff to people who should probably be spending there money in another way. Saving it, investing it, etc.
How dare the ad agency in question, show a complete lack of concern for people to do an ad like that etc.??
It’s trying to make people buy ‘tat’ and that’s not on?
Is there where you are at?
—
The assumption is that some people (them lot) are more at risk of being persuaded that us lot. Which is why they wish to protect them in some way. i.e. you mustn’t communicate to them like this or that. That implies they aren’t too smart, doesn’t it. I don’t think we should treat adults like children.
—
Not sure why your neighbour would want to persuade you about stuff. Unless you may be in need of what is does for a living.
—
The financial market has loads of regulations – it did no good – did it? Finance is a highly regulated sector.
Probably where advertising is headed too by the way. Barely be able to make an ad in the end.
People are having fun drinking that drink that implies that…….That ad implied it was okay to put your pets out in the snow ……
—
Rules do lead to dumbing down and sanitisation and blandness so I think it is important to address this.
—
If tolerance means we can’t (musn’t) judge things then I guess I must be for intolerance.
I worry about people but I wont give away their and my freedom. People do have to take some responsibility for their actions. Who hasn’t bought a sparkly D&G watch and later regretted it?
jim, we should pack it in and just agree to disagree here, shall we. i could write a retort, but i would repeat myself. as im sure would you.
Yes let’s do that.