For my show and tell, I picked a commercial that I found to be hilarious and effective in getting the message across, but there were a few things that would make it questionable as to whether or not it would pass the ASC guidelines. This commercial won a Silver Lion at the Cannes International Advertising Festival (June 2003), a Golden Shark at The Shark Awards in Kinsale/Ireland (2003), and Gold at Eurobest 2003. I am unsure as to whether or not it was aired in North America (I’m inclined to think it was not) and I have found versions of it in Dutch, French, and English. However the English version seemed to have been dubbed over, leading me to believe that the commercial was originally done in Dutch and French for the Belgian population (seeing as how those are two of the three official languages of Belgium). All this information can be found on their official company website at www.zazoo.be.
Zazoo Commercial:
Zazoo Condoms is a Belgian company began in 1998 that make prophylactics. Their slogan is “One for 2”, implying that they aim to create a contraceptive that is maximizing comfort and enjoyment for both parties involved.
There are two clauses of the ASC Code that would make the commercial questionable as to whether or not it would be allowed to air in Canada. The first clause is Clause 11: Superstitions and Fears. The second clause is Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals.[1]
Clause 11 states, “advertisements must not exploit superstitions or play upon fears to mislead the consumer.” The Zazoo commercial does not give any illusion as to what the product being advertised is until the very end when text appears on the screen making the message very clear. Once the message is conveyed, it is obvious that this is playing upon a fear of being caught in a situation where you end up with your child in a supermarket that is misbehaving in the most grotesque way possible. The father does not appear to be extremely young or old, which means that the commercial was probably intended to target males between the ages of 25-35 – a prime time in life when many people are either thinking about starting a family, or are heavily putting their plans for family on hold while they pursue a career or other interests. I find that within my group of friends, they are very split between being in serious relationship that are seemingly leading to (or have already led to) engagement or marriage, while the other half are very dead set upon not having children and focusing on their career now.
However, in a way, the commercial is not playing upon this fear to mislead the consumer; it merely exaggerates the worst possible outcome that could happen if one were to not use a condom and end up having an unwanted child. If anything, I would think that this commercial was designed to raise awareness amongst males 25-35 that there are severe consequences to their actions if they do not practice safe sex.
The second clause that raises questions about this commercial is Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals. In 14(d), it states that advertisements shall not “undermine human dignity; or display obvious indifference to, or encourage, gratuitously and without merit, conduct or attitudes that offend the standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population.”
The bolded part of the clause is what could get this commercial into some hot water. The commercial makes it seem as though the father wishes he had used a condom and in a way, this could be ethically controversial because it demeans the values around having a child, which is usually seen to be a good thing. He obviously is frustrated with his son and embarrassed in the supermarket filled with glaring, judging eyes of other shoppers, but it is that depiction combined with the product that is being advertised that communicates a message of having an unwanted child and regrets around not using a condom at a point in his life. Based upon the speculated age of the son (I’d say around 5-7) and the speculated age of the father (I’d say around 28-30), he must have been a fairly young father.
Another key important thing to note is that Zazoo used a male actor in this commercial. Young single parents are often associated with single mothers but in this case, it is the father – which is fitting considering they are advertising condoms. The effectiveness of the commercial would have not been as high as if it was a young single mother. Although condoms are dualistically beneficial for males and females (that is, chances of having a child is lowered for both parties), the male is the one who ultimately is the one with his sword in a sheath. However, the commercial does not provide any information about condoms, the use of condoms, or instructions. This is most likely because it is generally understood that people who are old enough to need condoms, understand what condoms are for. It’s kind of like advertising a vehicle… you don’t need to explain what an automobile is or how to drive because it is assumed that potential consumers have licenses and know what uses a vehicle provides.
In order for this commercial to be aired in Canada without getting flagged, it would have to most likely be advertised late at night or during adult programming. It is not something that would be airing during after-school programming. The effectiveness of the advertisement is high because it resonates with the thoughts, fears, and ideas that younger people have about unwanted pregnancies. The appropriateness is debatable but I feel like it is a well done commercial and the awards were justifiably given.
Verdict: Very Effective and Medium Appropriateness
[1] “The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.” ASC. Web. 10 Nov. 2009. <http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx>.
