Dingdong for BENCH is SPANK'd!

Jewelz writes...

Here's another one of Dingdong's BENCH ads along Guadalupe... There are so many oversized billboards showing him. Do you think these billboards promote the value of decency and courtesy when it shows a person in his underwear? SPANK'd!

*taken from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWC62cATBW5sX4PbezbAp02R3aFBKc6NmuMv7jteEVZYf2m7uSkJkbH6Lrz1a4B6_XyGB3qOgTBkA7PEal7eReB2fJkdzLGRz1VasPtBKFjoU1nv3WSKweZk4nqVxRgpkWc341vmiTTPno/s1600-h/dingdong-dantes-bench.jpg

In the Advertising Code of Ethics, ARTICLE 1 STATEMENT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES,

Section 9, states, "Advertising and its practitioners are encouraged to promote the
following additional values:

1. National unity
2. Respect for human dignity and the rights of all
3. Decency and courtesy
4. Respect for religious beliefs, customs and traditions
5. Pride in things Filipino
6. Respects for law and authority
7. Adherence to principles of justice, honesty and fair play
8. Dignity of labor
9. Environmental concern."

This ad definitely does not promote respect for human dignity. If it did, it would not have shown Dingdong only wearing briefs. Instead, he chose to pose and reveal parts of his body which should be kept private. Where is the decency here? I think this ad definitely is a distraction because it reveals everything.

Furthermore, this BENCH ad violates Article IV Section 1 of the Advertising Code of Ethics, Number 4 and 5 which states, "Profanity, obscenity and vulgarity, or presentations which are offensive to contemporary standards of decency of morals, shall not be allowed, even when understood only by a part of the audience." and "Indecent exposure of the human body shall not be allowed. Some exposure of the human body may be allowed in advertisements when in good taste and relevant to the product or service being advertised, the situation being portrayed or the audience being addressed."

I think Bench should think of another strategy to market their underwear. They have been showing too much obscene billboards. It may bring them money for now, but they are degrading the morals of society. We should uphold what is right and true and respect the privacy of others.

*Thanks to MM, one of our readers who suggested that this ad should be SPANK'd!

What do you think?

Max by Revicon gets SPANK'd

Jewelz believes...

Although Max by Revicon no longer shows this ad on television, I still think that they should get SPANK'd for showing it on local TV. There are many children watching local TV shows and they too are exposed to its sexual connotations. When children see this behavior, they may think that it is okay and it is being accepted, when in reality it is NOT.

At first we think the ad is for extra energy and exercise, however, in the end the girl sits up and we realize that this is for married men because of its sexual content.

This ad should be targeted to married men and should not be broadcasted on television. They should use other forms of advertising such as direct marketing to avoid those outside their target market from viewing it.

This TV commercial violated the Advertising Code of Ethics - Article IV, Sec. 1, # 6, which states,
“Advertisements should not depict or exploit persons as sex objects and should not carry any sexual entendres.” According to Oxford English Dictionary, sexual entendres means having a double sense or meaning. This TV commercial suggests that the man and woman were doing the sexual act. This ad is SPANK'd!

What's your say?

Max by Revicon

Jewelz shares...

Check out this ad: Max by Revicon

It used to be shown on TV in local channels.

Do you like this ad?

Frenzy Condoms - FX Wraps gets SPANK'd

Jewelz replies...

A few of our readers noticed that there are FX wraps of Frenzy Condoms roaming Metro Manila. Frenzy is definitely getting SPANK'd!

Frenzy used to be advertised on television with the tagline, "Get into it," which was a message targeted to teens. They portrayed it in an attractive and cool manner to be able to get the attention of teens. Furthermore, Frenzy used FX Wraps for their below the line advertising which reinforced the idea of pre-marital sex targeted to teenagers.

This is definitely a sin product because for one, condoms are mainly used as a contraception so that those engaging in sexual intercourse would prevent the girl from becoming pregnant. Second, this should not be even marketed because it goes against procreation. Third, it allows two people who are not married to behave indecently without having to deal with the consequences.

If one wants to argue that condoms are used to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, maybe one should think about finding the right person and getting married first.

Having Frenzy use FX wraps to market to teenagers is not a good idea because it degrades our society which upholds strict values such as human dignity, respect and togetherness of the family. It also promotes sexual promiscuity among the youth.

Frenzy condoms shouldn't be marketed at all, especially to teenagers. These ads violated the Advertising Code of Ethics, Article 1, Section 8, which says,
“Advertising has a social, economic, and cultural responsibility to the community and the advertiser’s interest should take into account community interest.”

Thank you to Jox, 61 and to those who suggested that Frenzy condoms should be SPANK'd. We strongly agree with you.

What else do you have to say about Frenzy condoms?

Bingo Biscuits...

Erine says...

Hmm... I don't know whether the mall meeting was intended to bring some humor into this ad or just mainly an attention grabber targeted for teens. What I do know though is that the ad's abruption (surprise factor) is rather insulting on the part of the women since the guy who brought Bingo cookies got turned off when he saw a fat girl in pink and thought she was the one he was supposed to meet. What the execution basically shows is the fact that there are certain - shall we say - imperfections in society (e.g. homosexuality, plain simple ugliness and obesity) that we find unappealing and that we would rather avoid them, but then again, why show them? If a fat person (forgive me for the term) would watch that TV commercial... just try to guess what his (or in this case, her) reaction would be?

Sure the execution is not sexually implicit, I'll say that much for it, but then again what does showing a mall meeting have to do with the crunchiness of Bingo cookie sandwiches? These are snack foods that are being advertised, so if the client company or agency believes that crunchiness of Bingo cookie sandwiches is the unique selling proposition for this product, then show it in a straightforward manner!

One last thing before I finish this entry: If you want a great example of a snack food advertisement, then look for the old Chippy TV ads. If some of you remember that one where a barkada watches a horror flick then suddenly a white lady appears and steals their last bag of Chippy, you'll know what I mean. At the end of that commercial, the guys decide to go after her - completely disregarding the fact that they are up against a ghostly figure, since its THEIR chips that she stole! Now, that's a great commercial! ^_^

Here's something useful that our group found in the Philippine Advertising Code of Ethics, Check it out:

Advertising Code of Ethics – Art. IV, Sec. 2, # 2

“Neither should advertisements directly or indirectly disparage, ridicule, criticize or attack any natural person or groups of persons especially on the bias of gender , social or economic class, religion, race or nationality.”

In layman's terms: Don't put any messages that can insult certain types of people (in this case, overweight people)

Bottomline: Spank this ad! Not becuase its sexually implicit but because the execution simply has nothing to do with the brand's unique selling proposition! (The ad is unethical because it carries an insulting message).

Bingo Biscuits - Eyeball

Bingo Biscuits by Monde...

Do you like this ad?

Bench Low rise jeans has been SPANK'd

Jewelz says...

When I first saw this ad awhile back, I had a similar reaction to most of the comments made in the previous post (Bench Ad - Low rise jeans). I thought it was funny, although I felt a bit ashamed because what if that ad came out and me and my mom were watching. Should I react to it and laugh out loud? Or should I pretend that I didn't get it?

It's obvious that Bench used sex to sell their product. In the first shot we see part of a naked body with a grandma and her grand daughter strolling. We then see the reaction of the grandma in seeing Sam Milby assuming that he was naked. As the camera zooms in showing the endorsers from top to bottom, the grandma grasps the wrist of her grand daughter tightly until the bead bracelet breaks and falls on the floor. Immediately, the sprinklers turn on and then shows that Sam Milby was wearing jeans after all. I definitely believe that there is no question about the sexual connotation that was in the ad. The timing, music, and visuals are syncronized to create a sensual effect. If it was you first time watching this ad, I'm pretty sure that you watched it from beginning to end and that was the whole point of this ad.

To some, having people watch an ad from beginning to end without changing the channel is an accomplishment. However, I believe that this ad should not have been broadcasted on TV especially because there are many viewers who are under aged and they may get the wrong ideas in dealing with the opposite sex. If it were only the adults watching this ad, I still think it would be wrong because when they watch the ad over and over again, they don't realize that they are becoming passive viewers. The first time they watch it, it may strike a funny bone. However, in the long run they won't realize that the ad is actually not good.

To cover up all the sexual connotations in the ad, Bench used Sam Milby, an actor and singer who was peaking in his career. Many people adored his character, buff body and of course his good looks!

According to the Philippine Advertising Code of Ethics in Article IV, Sec. 1, #5, it says,
“Indecent exposure of the human body may be allowed in advertisements when in good taste and relevant to the product or service being advertised, the situation being portrayed or the audience being addressed.”

The ad shows Sam Milby half naked but makes the viewers think that he’s really naked. I believe that this advertisement violated Article 4, Section 1 of the advertising Code of Ethics.

Furthermore, in Article IV, Section 1, #6 it says, “Advertisements should not depict or exploit persons as sex objects and should not carry any sexual entendres.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines sexual entendres as having a double sense or meaning. Don't you think that the Bench Ad of Sam Milby contains double meaning? Look at the timing, music and visuals. All together they have sexual connotations which are inappropriate to show on television. What would the viewers think?

I am not trying to put down Bench or Sam Milby for that matter. I would just like to bring to attention the sexual implicit message found in the ad, which should not have been shown. I think Bench could improve the Low-rise jeans ad and execute it in a more creative way.

Please check out: Bench Low Rise Jeans to view the ad and the comments.

Tell me what you think? What's your stand?