About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Benjamin · 11-06-2025, 05:39 AM

Quote:

A TV ad for chocolate bar Twix has been banned for encouraging unsafe driving.

The advert shows a man with flowing hair involved in a car chase and crash that results in his and an identical, caramel-coloured car sandwiched on top of each other, like a Twix.

Five complaints issued against the advert said it encouraged dangerous driving and was irresponsible.

Mars-Wrigley, who own Twix, argued that the ad had a "cinematic presentation" and was set in a "world that was absurd, fantastical and removed from reality", which Clearcast, the non-governmental organisation that approves adverts before broadcast, echoed.

But the watchdog the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled the ad "must not appear again" in its current form because it "condoned unsafe driving".

While the ASA acknowledged that the stunt performed highlighted the fantastical nature of the advert, it took issue with the first half of the video that showed driving "that appeared likely to breach the legal requirements of the Highway Code".

It said there was an "emphasis on speed" including with "fast paced beat and music" in the car chase, noting the "visible skid marks" left on the road.
Mars defended the advert, saying "the cars were shot driving at lawful speeds and any emulation would only reflect the legal and safe driving presented".

The sweet giant, who also own M&Ms, Celebrations and Maltesers, added that Twix is known for its absurd and playful humour, which was reflected in the advert.

The final scene shows a Twix bar falling through the sunroofs of the two cars, before they drive off - still attached - and with the tagline "two is more than one".

For its part, Clearcast told the ASA that the style of the video made it clear it wasn't meant to be emulated nor did it suggest "safe driving was boring."

In the ASA's ruling, it said it told Mars "not to condone or encourage irresponsible driving that was likely to breach the legal requirements of the Highway Code in their ads."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y5ez8189lo

The advert in question.

Youtube video

Maru · 11-06-2025, 05:45 AM

Are we that helpless?

Who knew candy commercials had more influence than the common action movie.

Ammi · 11-06-2025, 06:01 AM

…if it was going to be banned, I would have thought it would be because it didn’t seem to connect with the product …not until the very end with that ahhhhhh moment…the twin cars together was pretty cool and putting drama and story back into ads more feels ok because we know it’s not real…I doubt that it would encourage anyone or be seen as encouraging to reckless/speed drive…I guess that banning an ad is a good ad for the ad, though…

Ammi · 11-06-2025, 06:44 AM

…Jackson’s of Yorkshire, inciting city riots 2025 style…?…Breaking B-ads….

Youtube video

Crimson Dynamo · 11-06-2025, 07:27 AM

well the advert is certainly unique and its not for the driving..

BBXX · 11-06-2025, 07:36 AM

If that was to encourage anyone to drive in an unsafe manner, they shouldn't be behind a wheel. I don't think anyone would look at that ad and be like "omg gunna try that tomorrow looks cool".

bots · 11-06-2025, 07:41 AM

they may as well ban all adverts because nothing is free of some implication or another

Beso · 11-06-2025, 08:49 AM

All these flakes pick on any old topic thesr days, oh well, it was bounty happen.

Livia · 11-06-2025, 08:59 AM

I remember Transport for London banning a poster from The Tube, for a West End show because it had a wedding cake on it and might encourage obesity.

Crimson Dynamo · 11-06-2025, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beso

All these flakes pick on any old topic thesr days, oh well, it was bounty happen.

Ammi · 11-06-2025, 09:05 AM

…I won’t make another separate thread but in the same vein of ad banning…

Clothing brand advert banned for objectifying Katie Price after complaints made

A clothing brand advert featuring model Katie Price has been banned after a watchdog ruled it 'objectified and sexualised women'.

The ad for clothing brand Diesel appeared on the Guardian news website on March 26, showing an image of Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that it objectified and sexualised women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin.

It was ruled that the advert was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.

Diesel clothing advert banned for objectifying Katie Price

Diesel said the advert was part of a brand campaign called ‘The Houseguests’, designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry by reflecting a wide range of body types.

It believed the advert was compliant with advertising rules, but did remove it from the Guardian website.

The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the advert on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again as it did not comply with their policies.

Diesel argued that Price was 46 years old and had a body type that was not usually included in high-fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models was between 16 and 23.

It also believed the image was a “celebration of Ms Price’s sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising”, and “showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag”.

Diesel also said that although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight.

Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price’s breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers’ attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body.

The ASA said: “While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her.

“We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.”

The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis.

It added: “We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.”

Diesel said: “Diesel’s latest Houseguests campaign continues its tradition of challenging norms and embracing individuality.

"A key image features model Katie Price, 46, showcasing a body type rarely seen in high fashion, proving that women of all shapes and ages deserve representation. The photo celebrates confidence and empowerment without objectification.

“Shared in over 100 countries, it has not received any regulatory complaints, highlighting Diesel’s commitment to respectful, inclusive storytelling.”

…full article…

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clothing-b...230100943.html

Mystic Mock · 11-06-2025, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBXX

If that was to encourage anyone to drive in an unsafe manner, they shouldn't be behind a wheel. I don't think anyone would look at that ad and be like "omg gunna try that tomorrow looks cool".

Exactly.

Plus Twix have delivered some dark material in their Adverts in the past.

Like I always remember the Advert where the two Bears are stalking two people eating a Twix out in the woods, and they start describing how they hunt their prey.

But that Advert never got banned, and rightly so imo.

Mystic Mock · 11-06-2025, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ammi

…I won’t make another separate thread but in the same vein of ad banning…

Clothing brand advert banned for objectifying Katie Price after complaints made

A clothing brand advert featuring model Katie Price has been banned after a watchdog ruled it 'objectified and sexualised women'.

The ad for clothing brand Diesel appeared on the Guardian news website on March 26, showing an image of Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that it objectified and sexualised women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin.

It was ruled that the advert was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.

Diesel clothing advert banned for objectifying Katie Price

Diesel said the advert was part of a brand campaign called ‘The Houseguests’, designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry by reflecting a wide range of body types.

It believed the advert was compliant with advertising rules, but did remove it from the Guardian website.

The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the advert on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again as it did not comply with their policies.

Diesel argued that Price was 46 years old and had a body type that was not usually included in high-fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models was between 16 and 23.

It also believed the image was a “celebration of Ms Price’s sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising”, and “showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag”.

Diesel also said that although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight.

Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price’s breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers’ attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body.

The ASA said: “While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her.

“We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.”

The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis.

It added: “We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.”

Diesel said: “Diesel’s latest Houseguests campaign continues its tradition of challenging norms and embracing individuality.

"A key image features model Katie Price, 46, showcasing a body type rarely seen in high fashion, proving that women of all shapes and ages deserve representation. The photo celebrates confidence and empowerment without objectification.

“Shared in over 100 countries, it has not received any regulatory complaints, highlighting Diesel’s commitment to respectful, inclusive storytelling.”

…full article…

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clothing-b...230100943.html

They listened to 13 complaints?

There were probably more people voting to evict Lisa and Sara against Nicole in BB9 back in the day, than there were people that were bothered by this Katie Price Advert.

Such a tiny minority shouldn't be being catered to imo.

BBXX · 11-06-2025, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

They listened to 13 complaints?

There were probably more people voting to evict Lisa and Sara against Nicole in BB9 back in the day, than there were people that were bothered by this Katie Price Advert.

Such a tiny minority shouldn't be being catered to imo.

While I don't think they should listen to 13 complaints, I do believe Katie Price promotes unhealthy body choices and shouldn't be used for advertising campaigns.

Ammi · 11-06-2025, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

They listened to 13 complaints?

There were probably more people voting to evict Lisa and Sara against Nicole in BB9 back in the day, than there were people that were bothered by this Katie Price Advert.

Such a tiny minority shouldn't be being catered to imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBXX

While I don't think they should listen to 13 complaints, I do believe Katie Price promotes unhealthy body choices and shouldn't be used for advertising campaigns.

…I think that the Twix ad only had 4 or 5 complaints …I’m thinking that the ads aren’t banned because of the complaint quantity itself…(…captain obvious…

…)…but just that the ASA is very clear in what would be a breach to its rules in upholding what it’s laid out…so any complaint../…one complaint for instance…I would guess, would be looked into whether it did in fact breach…and if it was felt that it did…?…then the ad would be banned and I think that’s a very clear/black or white thing for them…the reason stated for the Diesel ad ban in the UK with Katie wasn’t the content of all complaints, but some things stated did breach…

…so far as the topic and Twix ad ban…I would say it’s a bit like a subliminal ad for it anyway because whenever someone is buying a chocolate bar/biscuit, the ban in itself and media attention itself might have placed Twix as top of the conscious purchasing thoughts ….

Mystic Mock · 11-06-2025, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBXX

While I don't think they should listen to 13 complaints, I do believe Katie Price promotes unhealthy body choices and shouldn't be used for advertising campaigns.

I personally do agree with you on Katie Price.