Gavin Collins, Managing Director, is throwing a tanty. And he blames one little post on livejournal for all his problems. This is not new for him; he already hyperfocused on logansrogue’s post in his previous response to the ASB (you’ll need to go to the link and search for Crazy Domains in the second search box on the left, where it says “enter phrase” – I can’t find a direct link).
He spluttered that she had “vested interests”, and failed to back up his accusation. He already said that “the feminist bloggers on the said site” (there’s only one!) did not “represent the majority of society”. That feminists were “unreasonable” and “overly sensitive”. That the ad was just a joke (yes, I call bingo). There’s nothing new to add.
Also, since when did the ASB pull ads based on complaint numbers? Last time I looked, they consider an ad, and if it doesn’t fall within the standards, they make their ruling. They don’t run a poll.
Anyhow. Check out this letter. This dude has a big buzzing backlash bug up his bum.
Independent Reviewer of ASB Decisions
Level 2, 97 Northbridge Avenue
Turner ACT 2612
9th March 2010
Crazy Domains – Appeal to Complaint Reference Number 24/10 & 22/10
We request an appeal of the ASB Board ruling with regards the Crazy Domains TVC as detailed in Case Reports 24/10 & 22/10.
There are significant grounds for a review of the ASB ruling. These include;
1. The introduction of new evidence that has come to light subsequent to the ruling,
2. A flaw in the process with regards provisions of the code.
At present there is no legal action underway or contemplated with regards the Crazy Domains commercial. We do however withhold our rights with regards future legal action.
it has come to our attention that the complaints received by the ASB were the result of a deliberate campaign with the expressed aim of causing harm to the business by having the TV commercial removed from broadcast.
It is clear from postings on the website HTTP://logansrogue.livejournal.com/1327524.html that the commercial has fallen victim to this determined and organised effort by an individual who has a persona! grudge against the company. The title for the website clearly states the author’s intentions: “Crazy Domains – i am going to end you, fuckers“.
The site is an expletive strewn tirade against Crazy Domains and solicits support to find an ‘end’ to Crazy Domains, in a final statement the author of the site writes “I’m going to be calculated, my darlings. I’m going to see exactly what would make a difference to these douchebags and expend my energy cleverly, effectively and resoundingly“. The site tries to recruit visitors to post ideas that could be harmful to Crazy Domains. One of the ideas suggested is to make copy-cat complaints about the commercial to the ASB.
It is clear that the complaints received by the ASB have been contaminated by this campaign and the ASB has been unwittingly exploited to further the agenda of this individual. The legitimacy of the complaints are extremely suspect and do not represent the views of the actual audience of the commercial. Without the complaints generated by the website it is doubtful that the ASB would have received enough legitimate viewer complaints to qualify for a review.
The whole process by which the commercial was reviewed by the ASB must now be called into question and grounds exist for the ruling to be overturned.
If the ASB allows itself to manipulated in this way then the legitimacy of the Board as an effective instrument of self-regulation is open for debate.
Flaws in the process with regard provisions of the code
As per our original submission to the Board we do not feel that the ruling is consistent with the code or with the precedents set by the Board with regards other advertisers.
The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the commercial being in-line with the Board’s previous interpretations of the code and the decision to withdraw the commercial is flawed in this context.
In the instance of commercials for Unilever (ASB Case 194/09} and Coca-Cola (ASB Case 160/09) the Board ruled that the commercials did not breach the Code. However, the similarities between the commercials for both these advertisers and for Crazy Domains are striking. It appears hypocritical that these commercials should have their complaints rejected while Crazy is penalised.
In our response to the ASB, as detailed in Case Reports 24/10 and 22/10, we outline the key points made in the earlier rulings and how they pertain to the Crazy Domains commercial.
We therefore request the Independent Reviewer consider the Crazy Domains ruling in this context and in respect to these previous Case Reports.
it is clear that Crazy Domains have been victimised by an individual with a personal grudge against the company, who has in-turn recruited their friends and associates to complain to the ASB. This is a malicious attempt to cause injury to the company and does not represent the views of the television audience who viewed the advertisement.
In addition, the ruling by the board is not consistent with previous cases and there is a significant existing precedent of other recent commercials that have had their complaint’s rejected by the Board despite their content being identical to the Crazy Domains commercial.
We welcome the opportunity to submit additional evidence to the Independent Reviewer and are happy to be contacted at any time with regards this appeal,
BUT WAIT – THERE’S MORE. The Webster Journal quotes Collins as saying:
“The biggest challenge for the agency was to come up with something that wasn’t cheesy.”
Categories: gender & feminism