Award-Winning Ad Taken Off Air In Australia

bol_kernal writes "An award-winning advertisement on Australian TV for the new Hyundai 4WD has been pulled from being broadcast after stations received 80 complaints from concerned parents. The ad consists of a small child, age around 2 years, cruising down the road, window down, arm out the window, in his new Hyundai 4WD. He sees a girl of the same age standing on the side of the road, pulls over picks her up, and they go to the beach together. All in all it's cute, funny, and very well done. The ad aired late in the evening (8:30 pm or later), but it was pulled due to concern from parents about the copycat risk. What I want to know is, where has the responsibility of parents gone? Is the world becoming so serious — or so frightened — that fantasy is no longer allowed?"

Comments

From the Only in America dept.

[Simon Garlick]

In case you hadn't noticed, Australia is a de facto state of the USA now.

Yes

[Infonaut]

Is the world becoming so serious -- or so frightened -- that fantasy is no longer allowed?"

With one caveat. If it involves wealthy actors who play married hitmen trying to kill each other with everything from knives to rocket launchers, it's ok. Same thing with movies depicting armies systematically destroying each other with machine guns, bombs, flamethrowers, etc. Basically, the bigger the magnitude of the killing, destruction, and carnage, the more acceptable. The smaller the scale, the more freaked out people get.

Re:Yes

[omeg]

The smaller the scale, the more freaked out people get.

Well, APPARENTLY! Did you see how many complaints they got? OVER 80!!! That's no less than over 0.000004% of the population!

Re:Yes

[nkv]

If parents don't want their kids to watch stuff like this, they should stop their kids from watching stuff like this, not call the TV station to take it off the air. They're "parents". That's a title that entails some amount of responsibility.

There is a better option which is to throw the TV out the window and get it over with. Almost everything that comes on it is not worth watching anyway but that's a suggestion that'll most probably get me branded as a luddite.

Re:Yes

[j1m 5n0w]

**OR**, you could explain to your child why it's a bad idea to immitate that ad

Newsflash: children don't always do as their told, and can't be monitored 24/7 (parents have to sleep sometime).

so making them do an extremely unpleasant task would stop them

No, it wouldn't. It would compel them to do it in secret.

Obviously they can't do it without your permission, since as a good parent you would keep your keys somewhere safe as you would with the poisons, knives, (guns?), electric powertools, exposed electric circuits etc.

I'm not a parent, myself. What you say is a good idea, but one that not everyone will follow. Children are notorious for finding things that their parents think are well hidden, and it's hard to expect every parent to stick their keys in, say, a combination safe every night before going to sleep.

What would you think of an ad that depicted small children apparently having fun while playing with poisons, using knifes, shooting firearms, operating power tools, or installing an electrical outlet? Does that sound like a good idea to you? I'm all for personal responsibility in most things, but children don't always have adequate judgment, so I think the world is a safer place if we don't encourage them to do dangerous things.

Things are way out of hand

[El Cubano]

All in all it's cute, funny, and very well done. The ad aired late in the evening (8:30 pm or later), but it was pulled due to concern from parents about the copycat risk. What I want to know is, where has the responsibility of parents gone? Is the world becoming so serious -- or so frightened -- that fantasy is no longer allowed?"

Let me preface this by saying that I am a conservative Christian. Now, I have done some research and found out that most electronic devices that emit photons and audio waves have a switch which allows me to turn them off. The effort required to do that is even less than it is for me to get incensed and make a complaint. Why don't other people get this? Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.

Re:Things are way out of hand

[blue.strider]

There are more shades of grey in the world that just completely shutting off the TV. The shade of grey missing here is that ads have no pre-announced schedule. If one sees the War-Of-Worlds in the TV Guide, one may keep his/her kids away of the TV for the duration. But the ads may come our of the nowhere in the middle of any random program, and effectively prevent one from choosing between individual TV programs.

(Side discussion: This also indicates a certain fundamentally dishonest nature of ads, which is implicitly admitted by the perpetrators as they avoid to be fully open about the ad schedule).

Re:Things are way out of hand

[DamnStupidElf]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a conservative Christian. Now, I have done some research and found out that most electronic devices that emit photons and audio waves have a switch which allows me to turn them off. The effort required to do that is even less than it is for me to get incensed and make a complaint. Why don't other people get this? Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.

My guess is it's the people who leave their kids with the TV all night and always leave their keys in the car (possibly in the ignition) who are the most irate. "What if junior craws into the garage and starts the car because of what he done seen on teevee?" Turning a free babysitter off or remembering where they put their keys are things that are fundamentally beyond the intelligence of the type of people who are complaining.

While I don't mind seeing stupid people die, their children shouldn't be doomed to the same fate. Statistically, only 50% of stupid people's children are themselves stupid, so we should at least protect the 25% of smart children with stupid parents, hmm?

Re:Things are way out of hand

[the_womble]

Its because the parent are too addicted to the TV themselves to turn it off.

People are astonished that we do not have a TV. It is good for us, and good for our daughter. However, most people would no more give up their TV, any more than a heroin addict will give up their drug.

Re:Things are way out of hand

[_KiTA_]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a conservative Christian. Now, I have done some research and found out that most electronic devices that emit photons and audio waves have a switch which allows me to turn them off. The effort required to do that is even less than it is for me to get incensed and make a complaint. Why don't other people get this? Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.

Most of these people complaining are not doing so by their own violation, but rather, they are doing so after being told/commanded to by their social and religious leaders. Simply put, they're told about the ad/book/game/tv show/etc in church, around the coffee table, by their old friends, etc, and the Alpha of the group has them all write letters off to whomever they think might cowtow to them, trying to essentially blackmail the stations into submission.

The truly sad thing is that it works -- and that the attack drones don't even have to have ever seen the show to begin with. (Or do you really believe a few hundred thousand conservative Christians listen to Howard Stern and got upset about it?) It's rather sad that the Moral Majority has been reduced to trained howler monkeys, ready to fling poo on command, but, well, there ya have it.

They do the same thing with pretty much anything they don't like. Music, video games, websites, you name it. And it's only going to get worse now that they succeeded once against Howard Stern.

Re:Things are way out of hand

[mrchaotica]

While I don't mind seeing stupid people die, their children shouldn't be doomed to the same fate. Statistically, only 50% of stupid people's children are themselves stupid, so we should at least protect the 25% of smart children with stupid parents, hmm?

I'm not sure that I understand what you're suggesting here. By definition, aren't the 25% of kids worth saving smart enough to take case of themselves?

Re:Things are way out of hand

[Anonymous Coward]

A television is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just because you cannot either control your use, or find quality programming, doesn't mean it is a terrible thing.

Whenever I hear of people proudly proclaiming they "don't watch/own a tv", I think of people saying things like:
I don't read books!
I don't use electricity!
I don't own a watch!

Don't make out television to be some great evil, and don't pat yourself on the back because you don't make use of it properly.

A disease

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that we're seeing this kind of braindead parental nonaccountability, invented in the US, spread like a disease to other countries. Cultural evolution will officially come to a screeching halt when nominally immune countries like Japan show signs of infection.

This is getting pathetic...

[GFree]

People getting scared, frightened about the most innocent things.

There is a saying I've heard many a time: HARDEN THE FUCK UP. Seriously, if people keep raising hell about such trivial matters, soon there won't be any imagination, any creativity, any fun in the world. People will be afraid to do ANYTHING due to lawsuits.

It will be a truly dull place to live in.

Re:I for one am glad it's gone...

[pembo13]

Maybe you should see a doctor about that.

Why defend an advert?

[Deb-fanboy]

In general I dont like being subjected to the advertising industries little fantasies anyway. They will use every trick in the book to manipulate us.

So even though the advert in question is pretty innocuous I am not too disturbed if it has been pulled. As I see it, whats the downside, an advert is pulled. Whats the upside, a very unlikely (IMO) copycat event is prevented. I can live with that.

Re:I for one am glad it's gone...

[dont_run]

Maybe. But if the ad should be pulled, then maybe children should be blindfolded to ride on cars, right? Otherwise, they will see a parent driving the car and will get "ideas"...

Kids regard their parents as models much more than something from the telly. Even bad parents.

Nothing has changed

[DerekLyons]

The ad aired late in the evening (8:30 pm or later), but it was pulled due to concern from parents about the copycat risk. What I want to know is, where has the responsibility of parents gone?

Where has the responsibility of parents gone? Nowhere. Responsible parents were concerned about the ad - and voiced their concerns. The Advertising Standards Board responded to those concerns by pulling the ad.
 
I wish Slashdot reader would grow the hell up and realize parental responsibility covers a lot more ground than blindfolding little Stevie and locking him in his room, or handcuffing little Susie to the parent's hand.

Re:Nothing has changed

[TodMinuit]

Responible parenting means taking responability for parenting your child. It does not mean having the Government step in and do it for you.

Instead of complaining about the ad, it would have been better to talk to their children about it.

Re:Nothing has changed

[DerekLyons]

Responible parenting means taking responability for parenting your child. It does not mean having the Government step in and do it for you.

Had the goverment stepped in - you'd have a point. But it didn't. The goverment responded to concerns, which is very different from 'stepping in'. (I shouldn't have to point out that responding to the concerns of its citizens is one of the basic functions of goverment.)

Re:Nothing has changed

[mrchaotica]

"Responding to the concerns of its citizens" also got us the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, "blue laws," Jim Crow laws, and all kinds of other stupidity over the course of history. Hell, the Roman Empire destroyed itself by "responding to the concerns of its citizens" by giving them too much bread and circuses!

In other words, the fact that some citizens are concerned about an issue does not mean those concerns are valid! (I shouldn't have to point out that distinguishing between valid and invalid concerns is (ideally) also one of the basic functions of government.)

Re:Nothing has changed

[arthurpaliden]

One of the biggest problem in child rearing today is treating toddlers and young children like adults. You don't talk to them about it. You just tell them not to do it and then you supervise them. Remember if you cannot reach out and grab your toddler they are too far away.

Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but

[TubeSteak]

I don't know how you got modded insightful. Maybe 3 sentances in your entire rant discussed the issue in TFA/Summary.

This happened in Australia, so all your talk about religion, sep of church & state, etc. is so far off base I don't know where to begin.

Anyways, here's what TFA says

"But under the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice, fantasy cannot be used when it contradicts, circumvents or undermines the code.

"Many of the complaints were from parents concerned that the ad would encourage copy-cat behaviour in young children and might lead to accidents."

The board also found that the fact the toddlers were wearing seatbelts - instead of approved child restraints - also breached safety recommendations.

So, if it was just the complaints, it is likely that nothing would have happened.

BUT, as it turns out, a literal reading of the applicable Code suggests to The Advertising Standards Board that the complaints are legitimate.

This is exactly why there are government agencies who do such investigations.

Re:It seems to be a touchy subject.... but

[TodMinuit]

This has nothing to do with religion. This is a bunch of do gooders who think they are smarter than everyone else, and therefore, have the duty to step into the lives of others. It's called "Liberal Fascism" and seems to be growing by the day.

Re:Simple answer: YES

[smaddox]

The way I see it, with the amount of time it took to complain to the network about the commercial, the parents could have easily talked to their children and made sure they understood not to copy it.

For some reason, these parents think ignorance is better for their children than knowing about and understanding an issue.

Re:Something noone has mentioned..

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than getting outraged maybe people should consider locking their cars and putting their car keys out of reach of their kids. Might be worth checking on your children if you haven't seen them for a while too. Am I expecting people to think about what they are doing and take responsibility for their actions again? Stupid me!

These people are either "think of the children" reactionaries or people who believe they have a right not to be offended. Either way stop making excuses for them.

Commercials because you deserve it

[Steeltoe]

These commercials are incidious. Just like you dont get handsome, smart, creative and out-going from drinking Coca-Cola, but rather you may get more pimples, the sugar/caffeiene rush may boost you for a few minutes, and then over the longer run you get more dull and slow-witted.

You will be sure some kid will try this because it is shown on TV. Its not the parents job to foresee everything the child might do due to watching TV.

Rather, it is the parents duty today to bring up the kids without resorting to the TV and videogames.

Upbringing based on real-life, with real risks and real pain. Talking doesnt help when youre already living in a virtual reality. People talk about things all the time, complain about what should be done in the community. Talk is cheap. If you believe you have only one life, you better start to really live it.

Explain to a two year old?

[sjmac]

Here are some things I've noticed about my two year old:

  - At her own whim, she will copy almost anything that she sees or hears
  - The distinction between saying "You must try to drive the car" and "You must not try to drive the car" is VERY subtle to her toddler brain
  - Controlling her actions is very different from the type of programming I usually do
  - Like other two year olds, she does things that she knows her parents will not approve of
  - She already pretends to drive our car, and has worked out how to sound the horn

I'm sure seing someone "like her" driving a car would be quite a powerful image to her.

Personally, I have no problem with 80 parents choosing to complain about this ad. You don't choose the adverts that are injected in to the programs you watch. Though my wife wouldn't approve, I can imagine a scenario where I was watching (what I considered was) an appropriate program recorded late at night with my daughter in the room.

Re:Explain to a two year old?

[1u3hr]

I see it as 80 people who shouldn't have been allowed to breed.

Re:Explain to a two year old?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading your comment I find it hard to tell if you are being serious or satirical. If you are serious:

  - How can your two year old reach the pedals?
  - Why does she have the car keys or why is she in the driving seat while the keys are in the ignition?
  - Why is your child unsupervised in the car? Cars are dangerous machines.
  - You can use phrases that clearly say she can't do something rather than ones that can be misunderstood.

My daughter typically doesn't watch ads on TV and the ads in any case are shown after 8:30 PM when children should be in bed, if you are watching a pre-recorded program then you can skip the ads. The few occasions my daughter is she will be watching one of her own videos, not watching TV with me. My daughter is quite capable of understanding the difference between what is real and what is pretend especially if I tell which is which, though my daughter is a bit older (3 years old).

Something all parents should learn is that they can never control everything their child is exposed to, especially after they go to school. So just teach your child what is and isn't appropriate to do, make sure they are disciplined every time they do something wrong. If you are concerned about something your child has seen/heard then explain why and what is wrong with it and why they shouldn't copy it. Don't be a control freak, it's not good for your child.

Bringing up children can be hard work and tiring, but it isn't rocket science. Why do so many parents have a hard time figuring out how to do it? It seems to be mostly common sense to me, but I guess it isn't given the number of people that seem to have problems.

Re:Explain to a two year old?

[Vexorian]

Hmmn I do know something about children, you know I was a baby once. I have had brothers and some of my cousins currently have babies... But even in my totally away from parenting position I do know something: You don't leave 2 years old, ALONE, in a car with the KEYS ON, and grandparent post seems to be afraid that after seeing this commercial his/her baby will try to imitate that, possibly the only way for it to happen is that you are an irresponsible parent.

PS: There is nothing *unselfish* about having children

Re:Explain to a two year old?

[Slightly Askew]

Even the few parents who have kids because they actually want kids are often the most selfish people -- as soon as people become parents, they automatically assume their needs are more important than everyone else's.

Survival of the species. Of course my own offspring are more important than everyone else. In nature, even in species with very strong social values, it is not uncommon for a parent to sacrifice themselves or other members of their troop to save the life of their own single child. I would gladly throw a half-dozen complete strangers or myself in front of a bullet to save my kid.

Re:Explain to a two year old?

[644bd346996]

It's not a pro-eugenics stance. It's a pro-evolution Darwinist stance. That's even less acceptable in today's political climate. These days, the smart exist to keep the dumb from dying before they can breed.

Re:Explain to a two year old?

[nanojath]

The problem I've got is with the notion that the way to keep your toddler from driving is to make sure s/he doesn't get exposed to the idea that it is possible.

I apply what I feel to be a sounder principle, in that I do not give my 2.5 year old access to our car. It works like a charm. I parent with this crazy notion that, being full of fast and heavy and sharp and hot etc. etc. objects, the world is an intrinsically dangerous place and keeping my toddler safe in it is (gasp) my responsibility, which I achieve through (shock! horror!) paying attention to him.

I don't have a problem with these people protesting either, because, you know, free speech and everything, but they're still morons, and pulling the ad is typical knee-jerk BS which will do absolutely nothing for anyone anywhere ever.

Re:Explain to a two year old?

[ibbey]

You've obviously never had a young child. What you and apparently thousands of others (or at least three or four) here fail to understand is that you cannot control your children.

I know an awful lot of parents of well-behaved children who don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps it is YOU who can't control your children?

Regradless, you seem to be ignoring something important here. There are MANY things in the world that children could copy & end up hurting themselves. Should society ban all of them? In the car, they are much more likely to try to emulate you driving than the TV characters, so should you be banned from driving? Bugs Bunny drives-- without a seatbelt & often well over the speed limit even. Should Looney Tunes be banned? As another poster pointed out, should Peter Pan be banned since it makes children think that they can fly? Where do we stop?

No matter how carefully you try to avoid it, sooner or later your children will be exposed to a situation where they have to use their reasoning ability to make sure that they stay safe. All you are accomplishing by banning this ad is eliminating an opportunity to explain to your children why this behavior is bad and helping them to refine their critical thinking.

But if actual parenting is to much work for you, perhaps you should just put your two year old to bed before 8:30 PM? Then the entire problem goes away and no censorship is required.

Re:Explain to a two year old?

[eam]

> The only way to guarantee that your child won't copycat something - say,
> get into a car with a stranger because he might take you to the beach -
> is to make sure your child never sees it in the first place.

Wait! I came up with another one. How about: keeping your children under adult supervision!

I've got three kids. Oldest is 8 years old, youngest will be 4 in April. This may come as quite a shock, but all three kids have never been unsupervised in their lives! I know it is amazing, but it is true. That's how my mom did it. I'm sure my life would be easier if I would just trust the TV to take care of them, but I feel like I might have an obligation to raise my children myself.

Obviously the level of supervision required for the 8 year old differs significantly from that required for the 3 year old, but the concept is the same. You don't have to stand over them watching every thing they do. However, if a three year old can grab the keys and take the car for a spin, you aren't doing your job.

I think it works out well. So far none of them have taken off in the family car.

Other things my kids haven't managed to do:

  cut themselves with sharp knives,
  burn themselves on the stove top,
  cut arms or legs off with power tools,
  electrocute themselves,
  drown in the bathtub,...

Actually, the list just goes on and on. Those are all things they could easily do if they didn't have someone watching them.

It's things like this...

[exell]

That re-enforce my view that 1984 should be made required reading in every form of education. It's downright scary that it's not a government that is doing this, it's actual citizens, why do things yourself when you can convince everyone else to do it for you?

Re:It's things like this...

[poot_rootbeer]

my view that 1984 should be made required reading in every form of education.

Because the best way to inoculate people against authoritarianism is to force them to read something?

Truth and advertising

[Fractal Dice]

Whatever happened to selling a product on the merits of the product? Just for fun, watch a run of ads and ask how many ads now show a product being used in a way that is legal, possible under the laws of physics and by human beings. It's so silly that most products aren't even products, they're sold as fantasies irrelevant to what they are actually used for.

Parent Group != Most Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that most Parent Groups are very small, but very loud, groups! They do not represent the majority of the public, but somehow they always win...

I guess there should be another group consisting of "normal" parents who fight for common sense...

Re:Parent Group != Most Parents

[Yuan-Lung]

Remember that most Parent Groups are very small, but very loud, groups! They do not represent the majority of the public, but somehow they always win...

I guess there should be another group consisting of "normal" parents who fight for common sense...


I have a suspicion that the "normal" parents with common sense would be somewhat too busy doing, you know... actual parenting.

Re:Simple answer: YES

[j00r0m4nc3r]

What I don't get is how this is different than any other car commercial where they do crazy shit with the newest hottest sports car. Like driving 100MPH down twisty country roads, or spinning around mercilessly on flat rainy roads, or doing a little fade-skid to stop at the very end of the commercial. Oh yeah, in tiny print at the bottom they say "Professional driver on closed course." like that makes it OK. If there's one thing car makers do NOT advertise it's how to drive safe. So just put a disclaimer at the bottom "This is really a 30-year-old man dressed up like a 2-year-old, on a closed course" and all will be well...

Goal of advertisers

[slackoon]

My thought here is that the goal of advertisers is to have their commercials remembered and talked about so that people will think about the product. Seems to me that by cancelling or restricting the commercial they have only succeeded in making the commercial even more succesful. Lst I checked there were 355 comments about it on this site alone. It is being talked about all over the world and I think that the commercial is a roaring success!! On another note --> Props to the person who mentioned that a 2 year old could not reach the pedals of the car. I mean it's really rock bottom when people complain about things like this when they're not even theoretically possible. I suppose they'd better take Loony Tunes off the air too because some kid might build an Acme rocket and launch his friend to the moon!!