-
Kellogs Cruncy Nut Add.
Over at the new CTN website we’ve been discussing the new Kellogs Crunchy Nut Add.
The add shows a milkman coming to a door, he puts down the milk bottles and sees a pair of feet in slippers. The camera rises to reveal a transvestite who is shown as an ugly male in drag suggesting he is inviting him in for sex, the milkman looks shocked until he see the packet of Kellogg’s Crunchy Nuts on a table inside and says he’d love to madame (or words to that affect) suggesting the TV is the Crunchy Nut.
I found this add to be very offensive. Who can we complain to? Well we can cmplain to:
http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/index.aspThis page here
http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/page51.asp
specifically statesSection 2 of the AANA Code of Ethics
Portrayal of sex/sexuality/nudity
Portrayal of People
Language
Violence
Health & Safety
……
you may direct your complaint to the Advertising Standards Bureau.I have lodged a complaint with them and hope it is the first of many.
-
50 Replies
-
I’ve also submitted a complaint via the website.
In my complaint I’ve also indicated that I am transgendered, to highlight that I am personally offended.
-
Does that mean you will also complain when Bert Newton wears his suspenders and stockings on television as well????? It’s just another commercial getting a message across
-
tania – with respect, i would beg to differ from your viewpoint. sure, we need to lighten up and be able to laugh at ourselves, but i think the way that our lives are portrayed in the media goes some way to giving us a negative image (think jerry springer show – do you think that that show fairly portrays the general condition of transgender people in a positive manner?). and as i have mentioned in another thread, ignorance seems to be a mainstay of why the general public find the acceptance of transenderism difficult.
more importantly, i think that this advertisement is a good example of what’s called “symbolic annihilation”.
i guess we should be thankful that at least it is not a case of symbolic annihilation by omission, but that, in my view, would be a very small consolation.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_annihilation
Quote:Symbolic Annihilation is the absence of representation in media. This term is usually applied to media criticism in the fields of Feminism and Queer Theory to describe the ways in which the media promotes stereotypes and denies specific identities. Gaye Tuchman (1978) divided the concept of Symbolic Annihilation into three aspects: omission, trivialisation and condemnation.“Representation in the fictional world signifies social existence; absence means symbolic annihilation.” (Gerbner & Gross, 1976, p.182)
Tuchman states in the Mass Media book for A-level students on page 109 that females are represented far less than males on TV. Tuchman also stated that when females have roles, they are mostly shown as being negative roles.
and also http://www.portrayingpolitics.net/research.php – and they think that women are badly portrayed in the media! as the song goes … what about me (it isn’t fair)?
i would contend that this advertisement falls in the trivialisation or condemnation category (even taking into account the need to be light and be able to laugh at ourselves). imho, the main point is that the media do not portray transgenderism in a positive manner, or the reversal of symbolic annihilation. now if it were sports, for example, that would be a totally different thing, wouldn’t it? blatant racist comments and behaviour by high profile sports people go hardly condemned. that would be reverse symbolic annihilation.
you’ll also note that in the advertising standards, there is a section dealing with an advertising code for advertising and marketing communications to children. one of the factors in this code is “social values”. what social value do you think this advertisement gives to children about transgenderism (positive or negative, remembering that children are more impressionable than adults and less likely to be able see through “adult” humour)? should children be given strong, positive portrayals of transgender people so that they grow up and change the world by making transgenderism more acceptable?
sorry to sound “preachy” … but i think it’s an important issue. what do you think?
-
QUOTE ” i would contend that this advertisement falls in the trivialisation or condemnation category (even taking into account the need to be light and be able to laugh at ourselves). imho, the main point is that the media do not portray transgenderism in a positive manner, or the reversal of symbolic annihilation. now if it were sports, for example, that would be a totally different thing, wouldn’t it? blatant racist comments and behaviour by high profile sports people go hardly condemned. that would be reverse symbolic annihilation. “
i understand in what you are saying but if you like to open it up away from advertising which i am sorry this is kinda off topic but don’t drag queens do this all by them selves any how and they appear in society it self just not in some dingy LGBTI club.
-
Can’t find the ad and haven’t seen it either. Do you have a link to it?
-
Wow. This topic has really stirred up a hornet’s nest!
When I first saw the ad, I wasn’t offended. I saw it as a mildly humorous ad, using a cheap shot at the expense of a marginised group. However, when I read the comments from others I realised that this has a wider impact. I may be able to laugh it off, but the point is that the ad reinforces negative stereotypes. My reason for supporting the complaint is not so much because I am personally offended, but because we should be fighting anything which further marginalises and denigrates us.
I haven’t seen Bert Newton in suspenders and stockings, so I can’t comment on his portrayal. I do know that some media personalities have indeed been criticised for taking their parodies too far.
Unlike an entertainment show, this advertisement is shown regularly, and (as with any ad) is designed to influence people to think a certain way towards a product. The advertising message is designed to be remembered, and as such the associated negative portrayal of transgendered people is also likely be remembered.
Also, as Virginia says, this ad is more likely to be received and interpreted by children without the reality filter that (some) adults may have.
In Australia, it is NOT OK to denigrate any person or group based on sexuality, gender, race, etc. Over the last 50 years, many groups have fought hard to reduce negative portrayal and discrimination of people based on sexuality, gender, race, religion, etc.
If we do not point out that such derogatory stereotypes are offensive, we will remain in the same situation as other groups such as gays, women, Aboriginals and foreigners were 30-50 years ago.
Whilst we may be able to see the humorous side of the ad, consider (for a moment) the ad from a non-transgendered person’s point of view, and ask yourself;
(a) does this ad accurately portray transgendered people?
(b) if this ad was the first time that your child, or a friend, was introduced to the concept of a transgendered person, is this the message you would like others to see? -
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” – Gandhi.
I haven’t seen the ad, as I don’t watch commercial TV. But I hope that lots of people complain. It sounds awful.
Simone.
-
Overnight I received a reply from the complaints board and the complaint will be referred to the “Board” so they do listen and it will be interesting to see what they say. They did say that the complaint falls in category blah blah so are taking it seriously. Others may be interested to visit their website , follow the link on the first post of this thread.
-
well we can only hope that they close down the drag shows and every other advertisement that perceives things this way
-
Tania, there is a world of difference between a Drag show that you have to voluntarily enter and pay for and a publicly aired TV commercial that lampoons crossdressers and makes them out to be sexual predators…don’t you think?
-
Another consideration:
I can imagine that ads like this may encourage comments when we are out, such as “OMG, you look like that ****** in the Crunchy Nut ad.”
-
Christina drag queens are often out in public area’s at any time of the day , I hope they keep the ad going unless they remove every other ad that has portrayed it as well. Even football teams get dressed up at times and im sure there would be teenagers there laughing and having a good time at there party’s, so did you wish these to be banned too??????
-
There is an enormous difference between entertainment (drag queens), parody (Little Britain) and this ad as described. Although it is clear that it is also intended as parody it crosses the line with the implication that cross dressers (and since I doubt they draw a distinction, tg people) are nuts. Would it be funny if the person was gay? Black? Schizophrenic? No? Basically they have disciminated by presenting a minority group in a light as to draw ridicule. Situational parodies in ads are fine….when they target an existing minority group they are not.
Gwen -
Tania, you seem to have a problem with drag queens et al and no, I would not like to see them banned, they are transgendered too and are expressing that in their own way according to their choices. I assume that the actor in the ad doesn’t dress like in the ad to express his sexuality and IMO the ad is just a pisstake of us in order to sell the cereal .
I see a big difference in the two things as I have stated. We will see what the complaints board says about it. -
If that’s the way you wish to see it thats your choice i dont think footballers should dress up either nor do i think that drag queens should be allowed to be in public just like you think the ad should never air. I for one have written to the board stating i don’t find the ad offensive in any way
Moderator
Quote:Please note that it is a policy of these forums to encourage open discussion, and also to embrace the wide range of views held in our community. Just a warning . Please continue to refrain from attacking each other over views held.
