I'm asked how I find the difference between working in advertising and journalism. Don't I find that advertising is much more deceitful, that you have to lie for a living? My response is, actually it's the other way round. In advertising you are much more tightly bound in what you can say or do and what you can get away with.
When journalists are dragged before a tribunal it's usually for a pretty serious business. With advertisers, it's so often for a ridiculously petty business.
For example, last month the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) tried Publicis Mojo for a Nestle Condensed Milk ad which showed a man in a kitchen cooking up a table full of cakes and biscuits. He's only wearing an apron which is just as well as he's making an awful mess of the kitchen around him. The cakes look good though.
The accusation was that the ad was "very sexist". It was using a man in a sexual manner to promote a product, which, had the roles been reversed, "would not be acceptable". Now wait a minute, because this was a bloke cooking in an apron, he's doing what we would never show a girl doing ...d'you think? And this is politically incorrect. Well I would have said it was fun, or silly - but sexism wouldn't enter my mind. Fortunately the tribunal were equally pure-minded and dismissed the case.
To be dragged before the Press Council you must by accused of much more serious issues than a man making cakes in an apron. If you look through adjudications over the past year you will find some truly serious questions. Like The Weekend Australian being taken to task over a front page photo from the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17.
This is always a difficult question for editors. You want to register the seriousness of the tragedy. But can you show bodies in the picture? In this case there were two or three clothed figures in the foreground. One was apparently female and lying on her side with an elbow in the air. Another figure appeared to be partially covered by plane wreckage, but the nature and colour of their clothing was distinct.
It reported: "The Council considered the graphic depiction of bodies was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to a significant number of people, especially as many victims were Australian.
"It also considered, however, that the nature and scale of the disaster, including many Australian fatalities and the controversy about its cause, provided a very strong justification in the public interest for powerfully conveying the tragic consequences.
You can understand the difficult choice and why, "the Council did not consider there was a clear breach of its Standards."
Advertising to children is on a particularly tight leash these days. Coca Cola have just fought a battle over a campaign which compared drinking Fanta to an "awesome ride", a "bubble explosion" and "busting out to my favourite beats".
The ASB found that the commercial breached industry guidelines by advertising the fizzy drink to children. Coke responded that no, these aren't kids they are 17 year olds. "The Fanta Crew are visually depicted as older teens by their body shapes, hairstyles ...body language, gestures, accessories and ‘tools of play' (such as electric guitars and skateboards). They have 15 – 17 year old appeal."
The ASB didn't buy this and the commercials were pulled. There's no wriggle room for deceit in advertising.
