-
Kellogs Cruncy Nut Add.
-
well i assume then that people against this ad being aired will have also completed and forwarded a complaint to channel nine about the red faces act performed by dwarfsome entertainment. If you missed it here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KCIBY1hB04
They also have performed in many other places and also commercials. -
Tania, why do you persist in being so provocative? Let it be!
If someone is offended by something then it is their business, if you are worried by some ad that you have seen then do something about …or not …but leave those who were concerned about the Kellogs commercial to their own actions , it is their business , not yours.Moderator
Quote:Amanda sighs….second and final warning to participants. I repeat what I wrote before….
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. Please continue to refrain from attacking each other over views held. -
Well, being the left handed, Catholic, blonde bimbo tranny that I am I haven’t even been able to find the said commercial, even with the help of Uncle Google. I did find a lot of Crunchy Nut ads, none of which I found particularly amusing. This led me to wonder, when I do find it, will how it affects me depend on how funny I find it? I suspect if I find it amusing then I’ll be less inclined to object to it, which leads me on to think; when should I object?
I don’t find dwarves sending themselves up offensive-anyone is entitled to send themsleves up surely? Guys in B&W minstrel type makeup taking off the Jackson 5 I did find offensive. In fact when I first saw it I thought it was a replay from back in the 80s. Being a public servant I know only too well the potential danger of a practical joke-we can lighten up all we like but offensiveness is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.
If the thrust of the ad in question is that only a packet of Crunchy Nut would ever get someone to do something as repulsive as share the time of day with a TV, then I’m offended. That said, I repeat that I haven’t seen the ad, and a creative ad company should be able to create an ad that features a TV without putting them down.
There, I’ve written three politics and not come to a conclusion. Maybe I should try politics…?
-
Amanda, I am assuming that you are referring to my post as an attack, if so then , in my defence, can I say that it was not meant as an attack but just the opposite. It was a robust question of Tania’s motives in couching her post in the way she did but I am saying that if one is not offended by the ad , then that is fine but those who were offended surely have the right to complain to the appropriate body without provocation to be the last word on every “unPC” thing that appears in the media. As the great sage , Leonard Cohen said ” I can’t keep track of each fallen robin “
I found the ad offensive, I did something about it, I do not think that everyone should find it offensive ..end of. One opinion is no more valid or invalid than the next , IMO.
I think it would be a shame if robust debate is avoided due to fear of personal attacks , I have not seen anything lately that I would consider an attack .Moderator
Quote:I was just observing that some part of the posts (not just yours) were starting to question the person for holding their beliefs which is against the forum rules. I don’t want to see it get out of hand and people end up in the Sin Bin. Sadly, I have no problem after all these years distinguishing robust debate from members attacking each other Its a fine line that people go over in the heat of the moment. . -
julie/christine/amanda
“hornet’s nest” and “robust debate” – long may this be. i went to a night club in the usa last year, and the motto of their business (they are a chain with venues across many states) is “unity through diversity” – so, yes, please encourage differing views. and i was at the australia war memorial last weekend. i think the diggers died to make sure that we have an opportunity to debate robustly and not fear hornet’s nests! lest we forget.tania
the assumption you made didn’t seem to take into account that the two televised events are subject to two different set of rules. advertising is subject to the advertising standards bureau a “self regulating” body, whereas television content (the stuff in between the advertisements) is governed by the australian communications and media authority (not self regulating and a government body).strangely, the code applying to advertising is more difficult to comply with than the code applying to content. television is governed by the broadcasting code of practice.
in terms of gender identity requirements, a television station can’t broadcast a program that “is likely, in all the circumstances” to:
Quote:provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group of persons on the grounds of … gender …note the broadcasting code’s qualifications, “likely” and “in all the circumstances”, “intense”, “serious” and “severe”. the logical conclusion is that the content has to be very much in your face, to be in breach, whereas the advertisement can be implicit or much more subtle and still be in breach. in simple terms, there a a lot of things that you have to prove before you can show that a breach of the broadcasting code has occurred.
in my view (and you are welcome to disagree) if the dwarf act was an advertisement, there are probably grounds that the act portrays a negative stereotype of men in dresses, and is a negative social value that children may not appreciate. again, in my view, just because the performance is by dwarfs does not make it ok. as to meeting all of the qualifications under the broadcasting code, i don’t think it is going to quite make it (because of all of the criteria that need to be met).
so the crazy result of this is that you can have quite high levels of offensive content, then, during the ad break, the rules put together by a self regulating body deem that an advertisement containing anything of similar nature to the content of the program before or after it can be adjudged offensive and be asked to be withdrawn.
as for drag acts in general … that is a subject worthy of a whole new thread. there seems to be quite an array of views as to the so called political correctness of these, and this is complicated by the fact that the nature of drag acts can range from something akin to the dwarf act through to the danny la rue (rip) type of “female impersonation”. additionally, regulation (if any) is never going to be easy.
i hope this helps.
peace and love,
virginia xo
ps and my view as to protesting or making complaint?
Quote:He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. Martin Luther King Jrpps all statements in this post are benign of any intention associated with personal attack and should be read as that of intending to add thought and logic to this subject matter. my apologies for being un-light and precious.
-
At the risk of stirring up this debate again, I thought that I should report that the appropriate review panel has dismissed the complaints on the grounds that the person depicted in the ad that we sillies thought was a transgender person is actually supposed to be a “real woman” though a skanky one! and the part was in fact acted by a woman. Kellogs has denied that the householder character was intended as a TV but that the gist of the ad was that their product was so good that the milkman would share breakfast with a minger as long as he got the Crunchy Nuts!!
The bulk of the complaints did push the “TG’s are depicted as Nuts” thingy a bit hard IMO but I think that the claim by Kellogs that the person was not intended to be seen as a bloke in a frock , was a spurious excuse to keep out of trouble. I dunno about you folk but it looks a bit like a tranny to me and I should know, I are one.
I will leave it to one cleverer than I to post the link to the full reading of the judgement. -
Christina I agree, that is how that person appeared to me – not only one of the stereotypes of “trannys” but also a rather ugly & predatory one.
And yes, the point being made is that Kellogs Krunchy Nuts are so irrisistable that someone would be prepared to run some real (but strangely hilarious) risk to get a chance of eating some.
I do know this, that despite how they often appear, a lot of thought goes into making ads. Anyone who watches the Gruyen Transfer on the ABC soon realises that under the carrying on, much thought, science & psychology goes into constructing an ad.
And I gather that successful ads don’t set out to change peoples perceptions but rather to tap into them. And sad as it seems there is a lot of fun in the depictions of gay & transexual people. Those “Carry On” movies, and also that transexual scene in “The Adventures of Barry MacKenzie” are dated – and the depictions are highly stereotypical, but also funny, even today.
Personally I find that the Krunchy Nut ad is funny, but at another level it makes me feel embarassed & uncomfortable. I have this feeling that if I dressed up I would appear much as that transexual/mingey old woman.
It depresses me -
Well I finally saw the ad tonight. If I were into eating unhealthy breakfast cereals I wouldn’t be touching that stuff. It’s hard to believe there are still ad agencies pumping out stuff like that. Perhaps gays and other minorities are off limits and we are one of the few groups left that are perceived as too insignificant to worry about offending. It may have been an actress but the intention is clear. Mind you it’s such a bad ad that I find it hard to be offended by something so poorly done and, like most of the rest of their ads, so utterly unfunny.
-
the advertising standards board has dismissed (sigh) complaints against the kellog’s crunchy nut television advertisement. here is the determination:
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the complainants’; concerns that the advertisement vilified and was demeaning to cross dressing/transsexual/transgender (transgender) people; implied that transgender people are mentally ill and unattractive.
The Board viewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser’s response. The Board considered that the intent and take away message of the advertisement is that the milkman is such a lover of crunchy nut cornflakes that he will have breakfast with a not very attractive person.
The Board noted the complainant’s concerns that the advertisement vilifies transgender people. The Board accepted that the depiction of the woman could be interpreted as being a transgender person. However the Board considered that the more likely take out from the advertisement is that the person inviting the milkman in is, regardless of sex or gender, not physically attractive. The Board considered that the overall impression of the advertisement was not targeting or depicting any identifiable section of the community and considered that the advertisement did not discriminate against or vilify any person or section of the community on account of sex.
The Board considered that the reference to “crunchy nut”; is a reference to a person (in this advertisement the milkman) being such a lover of the advertised product that he will do anything to enjoy it. The Board considered that there was no reference to mental instability or illness of any person in the advertisement and that the advertisement did not discriminate against or vilify people or a section of society on account of disability.
The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach section 2.1 of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.
the decision is obviously a general one, not directed to any one complaint in particular, but tries to cover the general complaints within each particular section of the code. so some of hte commentary may not be easily identifiable to your particular complaint or to comments posted in this thread.
in my view, there may be grounds for appealing this determination. there are a few days left to do that and i may put together an appeal. if anyone has any issues and concerns about the board’s determination, feel free to post them here and i will collate these into an appeal.
-
I don’t see the motivation appealing the complaint again just on the one ad as they have already decided there out come. As i have pointed out this ad seems to have a lot of people concerned cant understand why there is complaint lodged about it and not to anything else like the dwarfism act that was on red faces especially when the advertising board has reviewed the ad and states there is not trans person in the ad
-
i saw to add as a joke, i hate it when people compaline about stuff like this, like that add with pam am for that crazy domin, now you cant see her wet with cream.
and that add was just a joke.
i say just laught at it and get over yourself,
let that add run it course and it will be forgotten.
remember there are other people out there in the world. and what you like may not be what you like and via a verser. -
to misty, tania, others who think that complaining is a waste of time, i put my hand up and say with passion, that i would like the world to be a better place, that tgirls (that covers the whole gamut of our diverse beings) can live in society and be accepted without ridicule, contempt and be understood.
wouldn’t it be great if we could all have jobs, not be stared at, not have people snicker and whisper, not have to jump through a million hoops to open up a bank account that is not in our name, not be put in prison with male inmates, be loved by our friends and family for who we are, not have our friends and family be subjected to rejection by their friends, family and colleagues because of our gender identity, and all the other hassles that we have to go through just to live a normal life.
of course if you are sort of passable and don’t cause any concern, that may be the least of your worries (well, actually, life is not really that simple, in my opinion). or some people may be living happily in the closet with their mirrors and digital cameras.
but to me, as long as trans people have their faces hidden or blocked out in their photos, as long as trans people do not post photographs of themselves, as long as people remain in the closet for fear of their spouses, family, friends and colleagues, as long as any hint of trans people being the subject of jokes and humour remain, then i think that we all have our parts to try and change the world we live in.
i have a friend who is transsexual and is over 70 years old. she used to work in drag revues in sydney’s kings cross in the sixties. many of you may not have even been born then. she tells me of when homosexuality was a crime (in nsw, this was changed only in 1984), the police would regularly beat them up if they caught them on the street or some of the police would seek sexual favours. today, any tgirl can romp down the main street of sydney in broad daylight in the middle of the week without fear of that. times have changed. times have not changed because people sit back and accept discrimination and rejection.
so fighting the fight is not about you or me, i think it’s about others who will come after us, who may be thankful for what we have done. it makes me laugh when people in the glbtqi community (and that includes us trans people) see the annual mardi gras celebration in sydney as simply a time to party (and in the case of trans people, a major frock up). in actual fact, mardi gras is a celebration in commemoration of the people who first protested against the absurdity of homosexual criminality. what we enjoy today is the fruit of the labour of those who fought before us.
sure there are other people out there in the world, and what we like may be different form what they like (and that will never change, thank goodness) but if acceptance of the trans condition was higher, many in the trans world will be better off and happiness increase. in fact, i think the world would be a better place and there would be more happiness around.
i’m fighting so that people do not have to hide, or or feel they can’t post photographs of themselves or feel that they can only be who they are within the comfort of their mirrors and cameras, amongst a whole bunch of other things that affect our community. don’t you think it’s worth it?
*gets down from soap box*
-
Under leglislation Virginia is entitled to complain and appeal about content shown in air that she regards as offensive. Should be end of story really……but for some reason it’s not. You may not agree with her but I will fight to the end for her right to do so. If the ad would not be shown if the target was gay, disabled or a minority then I have an issue with it too just on equity principles. Still haven’t seen the stupid ad myself. Don’t really want to.
Gwen -
As the machinery does not allow me to make a shorter , more succinct and to the point post….I would like to say …Virginia…here here!!!
Your posts are well written and on the money..more power to you. -
all i can say if you wish to complain about one ad and not all the other things then whats the use of making a large issue out of one thing and not the other
