United States television commercials cannot show drug or alcohol use, violent acts, or people drinking beer to name a few. More reasons for banning media, is stated on the Federal Communications Commission website.
However, some commercials are banned for obvious reasons, while others are not so prominent. Group One assembled some commercials banned for apparent, and not so apparent reasons. When will these topics be okay to talk about or should these topics be banned from public commercials? Monitoring what the public sees, leads us to wonder how much of what we see is fact, fiction, or embellished to persuade an audience or evoke a certain response. See if you can figure out why these commercials were banned, and what the intentions were behind them.
When it comes to condom commercials, it is easy for a company to push the barrier of appropriate and inappropriate. Because of obvious reasons, this particular condom commercial was deemed to explicit for television.
First and foremost, it is graphic in nature. The man has a million sperm following him around, that eventually get trapped inside an over-sized condom. Can you imagine watching television with your young children, and all of a sudden this commercial pops up on the screen? I am sure the children would have a million and one questions about why the men wearing white pointy suits ended up in a huge balloon animal balloon.
On the other hand, I knew exactly what the men were, and I was a little put off with the commercial. To me, it portrayed the message that all guys want is sex. Which may be true; but, I would like to think they have other thoughts on their mind when preparing for a date, other then remembering to bring a condom. This commercial is definitely geared towards the male population, as are most condom commercials. It would be a nice change to see a condom commercial that features a female being responsible and remembering the condom. Why should the man be the only one who is to blame if a condom is not used? All in all, I believe that more explicit commercials make it to television then this particular one. However, this commercial was banned for obvious reasons.
In this day and age, companies need to constantly engage barriers of right and wrong in order to create catchy advertisements. But, what do these barriers consist of, and when is enough, enough?
One company that pushed the limit too far is Ikea, they created a commercial that got banned from television. In one minute and thirty-three seconds this commercial shows a women getting killed, a girl trying to seductively suck spaghetti and ending up with a shoelace in her mouth, and a young boy playing with an adult toy. Obviously, this commercial was not created for a young audience, but that does not mean it could not be aired after a certain time. So, apparently the message is even too vulgar for its intended audience. This message seems to be geared towards messy men and moms. It uses sexual situations that go awry, in order to try and convince men that they need Ikea to help them tidy up their place. It also uses the same sort of technique to try and persuade women to do the same thing; however, the woman’s message features a baby playing with a female adult toy.
The commercial is definitely eye catching and intriguing, and it caught my attention. So, it did its intended job, but it pushed the limit to far and could not be mass-produced. The commercial uses emotional appeal in order to relay its message. I see how this commercial could be funny to some and offensive to others.
The message is being sent in order to persuade messy people to tidy up the help of Ikea, it uses sex and seduction in order to do so, and it is also very racy. The commercial pushes the boundaries of right/wrong to far, and that is why it got banned. If I were a teacher, I could use commercials and ads that follow this same theme, and have my students analyze them.
There is a certainty that everyone in the United States has been affected directly or has experienced a third-party encounter with the big “C,” also known as cancer. With technology on the rise, anyone has access to any type of information he/she is seeking. AdCritic was privy to various types of information. Unfortunately, their video offers limited concern toward those affected by the cancer. AdCritic appears to have taken advantage of an opportunity to exploit cancer sufferers. It is duly noted, cancer patients endure continuous, excruciating pain resulting from chemotherapy, radiation, and/or other alternative medicines. Many patients undergo repeated treatments of the aforementioned methods. Adcritic’s failure to consider the insensitive impact their commercial had on those patients and their survivors, the paradoxical message of a sexual nature aligned with the possible loss of breast(s), and the negative connotation associated with the special effects included in the video.
AdCritic carefully strategized a way to capture the attention of viewers by using a very young looking, and obviously inexperiencedyoung man (who identified himself as Cam), to provide a rhetorical speech addressing a real life situation “cancer.” It is no secret, examining breasts could lead to early detection. Early detection saves lives in many situations. The American Breast Cancer Society does a wonderful job getting their message to the public. Contrary to AdCritic’s message where Cam is in a comfortable setting. His environment, does not suggests a concern for any particular illness nor does the tone of his voice. Cam speaks of using appropriate techniques when examining breasts, and even offers to help (a clear indication this message is not expressing sincerity). It doesn’t take a brain scientist to figure out why the ad was pulled. Assuming AdCritic is being satirical, and I missed the mark along with those who deemed it fit to pull this commercial, I extend my apologies, and say “job well done.”
Moreover, there is another message in the video of a more sexual nature. You’ll note an eight hundred number displayed across the screen toward the end of the video with three additional young men sitting on a sofa. Obviously, they lack experience in the medical field. This is not to say, there isn’t a child prodigy out there, somewhere, but it is highly unlikely, in this case. Irony here is, it is highly unlikely someone checking his/her breast for cancer is considering an enjoyable sexual encounter. Keeping in mind how technology is improving considerably, well, recent studies have also diagnosed men with breast cancer. Actor, Jim Brown, also known as “Shaft” is among those men diagnosed. Imagine how a male might have felt watching the video. Where was morale? I know women who have had a mastectomy (removal of breast(s)). Many of them have difficulty conceiving the notion of ever having sex again, at least in the beginning. These women lamented over the loss of their breasts for a period of time. And some have yet to reach that stage. There appears to be mixed messages with this video. Keep in mind, these are mere opinions ONLY. Information provided in this report are not factual! Others may have a complete different view point with valid arguments.
AdCritics choice to use Cam, a young man, raises controversy. It lacks ethical appeal. However, Cam may connect to a younger audience in a more lustful manner if one is to consider their hormones at that age. He speaks of being highly trained and motivated. The question is…to do what? As he moves around the room, viewers are able to see the soft light, hear the slow music playing, and see an opened bedroom door in the background setting the stage for his initial intent, which is to have sexual encounters with the callers. Cam offers free services, then, skillfully places a 1-866-RING-CAM telephone number to connect with his audience. This is what the message conveys. Sadly, AdCritic concludes the video with a logo of the trusted Breast Cancer Society. Under the logo in very small print, the words, you do it are inscribed. Use of the logo suggests to viewers that the Breast Cancer Society actually endorses the video.
This video by World Wildlife Federation was intended to send the message that thousands of more people have been killed or displaced from the Tsunami, than in the event of September 11. However, less attention and support has gone towards Tsunami victims compared to those that were victims of 9/11. The way in which the commercial portrayed this comparison to the audience was found to be disrespectful to the victims of 9/11, America and its citizens.
Americans felt attacked once again, but this time from WWF not by terrorists. Can you blame Americans for focusing on a tragic event that was done intentionally by terrorists not by nature? A part of the message that was omitted from the WWF commercial was that 9/11 lead to a war that is still ongoing, and has required lots of money and attention in order to protect America. When WWF shows comparative statistics and vivid imagery of what it would take to kill the amount of people who perished in the Tsunami by showing the amount of planes flying into New York clearly sends the message that the audience needs to realize the Tsunami killed more people than the terrorists did and most definitely deserves relief and support efforts too. However, the comparison in the commercial may have been inappropriate due to the circumstances of what caused each tragic event. The commercial was banned for the disrespect shown for those who died on 9/11. Each person who was lost is significant in both catastrophes. Although some found the commercial appalling, when will touchy topics like these be able to be talked about? Perhaps, when the war is over, or 50 years in the future when the memories of 9/11 is no longer fresh in the minds of Americans. I think the point is we should not ignore any tragic event, as well as try and help citizens of the world recover. Even though the harsh comparison might have been unnecessary, it served it’s purpose-to grasp the attention of the audience, shock them into remembering these tragic events, and remind Americans that we are not the only people affected by catastrophes.
This banned commercial made me wonder if it would be more effective if WWF were to show pictures of suffering people in the environment they are living in post Tsunami. My guess is not, our society is flooded with commercials that ask the audience to donate money to a cause and a limited amount of the audience actually donate to those causes they see daily on their televisions. WWF probably knew it would be risky to air this commercial, but in the end it was effective in getting people discussing their emotions on both the events of 9/11 and the Tsunami. WWF more than likely knew that by showing dozens of planes flying into the World Trade Centers would evoke sadness, madness, fear and remorse because the images of planes crashing into New York. Also, the factual text of how many more people died in the Tsunami compared to The World Trade Centers would evoke remorse in some people for neglecting other victims of a catastrophe. At least this seemed to be the intentions of the banned 9/11 WWF commercial. This proves that linking powerful images and text together can be an effective form of media that evokes a strong response from an audience.
With the statistics that the Tsunami killed 100 times more people than the terrorists did on 9/11, provides the audience with substantial facts that also help to establish evidence, and credibility. WWF is known for its environmental support and is a credible foundation in world protection. World Wildlife Federation also hit home with Americans due to the timing of this commercial airing. The commercial aired only days before the 8th anniversary of September 11th, causing an emotional uproar in Americans.
In January 2002, Anheuser Bush aired a commercial in honor of the victims and families that were affected by the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers. The commercial only aired once and was then banned from being aired on television again. When you think of a video being banned you would think that there is something in the video that would offend, hurt or encourage a behavior that would not be appropriate. In comparing this commercial with the WWF 9-11 commercial you can see a strong contrast in how the commercialization of the 9-11 attacks were portrayed. The WWF commercial there is a clear sense of why that particular commercial was banned but when watching the Anheuser Bush commercial there is not a clear reason for it being banned.
After watching this video I would come to the conclusion that this video was meant out of respect and was not meant to be hurtful in anyway. Then you would ask the question was this commercial aired too soon? Answering this question yes is the only reason I can think why it would be banned. Since the commercial was aired only a few months after the attack, were people just not ready to see a commercial like this. Was it banned because of the time slot it aired? The commercial aired during the half-time of the super bowl. Since the super bowl is supposed to be a celebratory time did viewers and organizations believe that this was not an appropriate time slot for a commercial like this?
As Americans we have not experienced an attack of this nature on American soil before. With this being said, do we know how to handle the commercialization of it. Is it something that is just not done, when will be ready. Since the attacks on the World Trade Centers there have been a number of tributes to the victims and their families. Why is this tribute seen as anything more than showing respect to the victims and families?
Produced by Nike and banned in 2000, the “Soccer vs. Ninjas” commercial contains sequences of high action and sports. The driver of the van they are riding in sends several men on a mission to recover a perfectly round Nike soccer ball. The ball is heavily guarded and in order to infiltrate the facility, they must equip their feet with, of course, Nike shoes.
But what does it mean? The shoe manufacturers are clearly trying to exploit their products in proving that they are the best of the best – the top of the line. In order to get the perfect soccer ball, some of the best soccer players in the world have to use Nike shoes for their mission to even be possible! Word is, Nike is the best product around: if needed, you could climb buildings, fight samurai/ninjas, and steal very nice soccer balls.
This ad is clearly intended for men. The very beginning of the commercial starts out in a video game “mission start” format. The introduction music is reminiscent to the theme song to John Carpenter’s Halloween series, setting the mood to feel eerie and unnatural. The lighting is dim and dark, while they try to penetrate a high security building. Unfortunately, one of the athlete’s dread locks triggers a motion sensor and hundreds of ninja/samurai are activated. A very intense and long fight scene occurs as the athletes try to escape the building with the ball. Violence, special effects, and robots help attribute Nike’s appeal to men.
This Nike commercial was banned from United States television because at the very end of the advertisement, the leader of the ninjas, the red commander, is pushed into an elevator shaft and killed. If advertisements with killing shown are not allowed on US airways, does robot death count? What about robot suicide shown by General Motors in this commercial that did not get banned?
In the “Soccer vs., Ninjas,” Nike makes it apparent that the samurai/ninja is a robot and not an actual human being. So where is the line drawn? How far is too far when it comes to robot death?
Banned Stuff has many funny, interesting, and disgusting commericals, pictures, books, and videos available to anyone who is interested in banned items.
If you would like to further your education focusing specifically on banned commercials, this website is the one for you!
However, most of the content on these websites are not suitable for children, or sensitive viewers. Please proceed with caution.
As an instructor of a class, these videos could be incorporated into a lesson. After reflecting on the message of the video, students could have an open discussion regarding their answers. For homework, students would be encouraged to observe their environment over a period of two days; then write a one page paper including detailed information of why these videos should either be allowed to air or continue to stay banned, to present before the class.
Another activity to go with this media analysis would be for future students to research the guidelines of making a commercial, as well as the guidelines of banning a commercial. The the student will have a choice of commercials provided by the teacher to pick from, and write an analysis on what the message of the commercial is, and the intended audience. Then the student needs to either talk about what is wrong with the commercial, what is needed to make it acceptable through editing or why should this commercial be allowed if the student views the commercial to be acceptable.
The visual elements embedded in these commercials are affective in creating a strong argument that also incorporates the appeals of arguments- logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos. These videos would make a great introduction to such arguments and would encourage students to analyze all forms of media with such elements in mind.
Banned Commercials Blog 