<< Ludwig, I'm not too ceretain about whether any publicity is good publicity. >>

Granted Vanna. I was being a tad simplistic with that statement. However, all too often publicity that is supposed to be critical of a company actually works in their favour.

You say:

<< The ASB is a farce that dismisses about 99% of complaints. But they sometimes put the complaints online, and everyone can see the company involved. >>

They should put up ALL complaints there along with the ASB responses, and the relevant companys’ responses where required. In the interests of transparency and public confidence, this would be a good thing.

I haven’t gone runting around the website. So I don’t know to what extent they might be doing this.

Cornflower
You think the Ad a little too graphic for a public billboard yet you disagree that it is sufficient for the Ad to be pulled.

If it is too graphic then shouldn't it be pulled? That is all the reason needed.

Huggin's while not knowing the ages of other posters my impression is that most of us posting on this thread are not part of the CK target demographic. Mostly a little older or maybe somewhat less inclined to be driven by image.

How many people in your block of flat's own newish BMW's? If the answer is none that does not mean that there is no market for BMW's.

R0bert

*Yabby it is not what is in my mind or yours it is simply is this image suitable for the public domain.*

Pelican, there is nothing in that ad that you won't see down at
the beach, but then you Canberra people don't see many beaches :)

Of course it is about what is in your mind. It is how the mind
works by association, which advertisers take advantage of.

Cornflower put the case very well, but in this case we have a few
odd women who are making wrong associations, which tells us something
about their minds. Advertisers are not going to do that on purpose,
but advertising is a numbers game. As long as you appeal to the
majority of the target audience, the odd bods don't matter.

A young, hormonally charged female, is going to have a different
perception to yourself.

But let me tell you something else. Much as your maternal concerns
are showing, you are not going to protect those kids as you think,
if they are curious. I remember in grade 3, drawing things on
the blackboard when the teacher was not around, which were pretty
dam explicit. If your daughter had been in my grade 3 class, she
would have known everthing !

Today they only have to google and they will find free video
porn and absolutaly no imagination is required. The only people
who did not have a clue as to what we knew, were our parents.
We had no good reason to tell them either.

R0bert, it appears that Huggins won’t be responding to you:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4109#103263

pelican, "You think the Ad a little too graphic for a public billboard yet you disagree that it is sufficient for the Ad to be pulled."

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I trying to present what could be a reasonable grounds for objection, a appeal that accepted the reality of women's sensuality and yet was concerned about the possibility of community affront. Whilst it appeared to be the only argument for censorship of the advertisement that could have any reasonable basis at all, I nonetheless felt it did not have sufficient strength in modern times and said so. The community is not so naive and easily outraged.

What is far more interesting is that the critics of the advertisement didn't rely on such a simple and logical argument and chose to focus on men instead. Why?