Alcohol Advertising
Suddenly struck by an advert appearing on the Daily Mash. As you may or may not know one of the scriptures laid down for advertising alcohol is that it is not permissible to show or imply that drinking this brand will make you attractive.
So the advert I saw:
How is this any different to alcohol? Simple, if this were alcohol they'd be dragged before the Advertising Standards Agency post haste, but it's not so remember people Drink Pepsi Max - get laid.
Oh and yes of course the Lynx adverts and every single perfume/aftershave ad in existence.
So why the difference - because alcohol is eeeevil, eeevil I tells ya! No moral qualms over the adolescents who died after spraying themselves with a cans of deoderant, or those who drink litres of soft drinks and end up with diabetes. No of course not they were obviously not using the product in the correct way or responsibly. Yet alcohol is eeeevil! The demon drink that seduces you, that makes you lose control and drink more and more of it. No cries of misuse for alcohol ban it, ban it all, ensure it's never linked in the mind with popularity; have a litre of Coke instead much better for you?
2 comments:
This has always puzzled me. Lynx openly asserts that using it will turn you into an irresistable babe magnet — a claim which is trivially falsifiable. (I've been wearing it for decades, and I'm still a virgin!) How is this not “false advertising”? The product does not do what the adverts claim it does!
Ah see we have a difference here between implicit and explicit. At no point do they say that 'use this, get babes' they merely imply it; you can't even do that with alcohol.
Post a Comment