Logansrogue IS Teh Feminist Cabal, sez Crazy Domains

Remember Crazy Domains and their jizztastic cream-jaculatin’ Pamela Anderson advertisement? The one pulled by the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB)?

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

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.

New Evidence

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,


Gavin Collins

Managing Director
Crazy Domains

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

Tags: ,

15 replies

  1. Gavin’s hobby must be running into walls. Repeatedly.

  2. Looks like the managing director invested a fair whack of money in a failed advertisement, and now has to justify this to his overlords.
    “It wasn’t me, it was THEM!”

  3. Well, hrgh, they had to raise the funds to get Pamela Anderson to endorse their brand. That couldn’t have been cheap.

  4. By behaving as you have, you show that you have no understanding of the power of social media. You see Gav, when someone does or says something offensive (and I’ve seen your “advert”; it lacks any kind of taste and is completely inappropriate for broadcast) it will invariably get highlighted on the internet.
    More people see the offensive thing and think “That’s wrong, I’ll do something about that”, so they tell their friends, they think “That’s wrong, I’ll do something about that” and on it goes. Suddenly something you think is funny is berated as a piece of offensive garbage by more people than you know and your name is associated with it.
    This is the way of the internet powered age Gav. You come up with something offensive, those you have offended will respond and demand that you are held to account. Paperhcase, Phorm, Nestle, Jan Moir, the list of people and companies who have yet to realise this is growing.
    Your “defence” is in itself inappropriate. If an advert is in breach of the advertising code then numbers of complaints do not matter, the advert is in breach of the code and that is that. Your “advert” offended someone to the point of using bad language. That’s how offensive your “advert” was.
    You question the legitimacy of the complaints. That’s the standard response of someone who hasn’t actually got a leg to stand on. Phorm tried that in the UK and got taken down by the backlash they caused. If one person can cause you this much trouble then you really need to rethink a) your advertising strategy and b) the suitability of the leadership in handling these valid complaints.
    This isn’t victimisation Gav, it’s what happens when someone comes out with offensive garbage and is challenged. Grow up, look around and get real. If you don’t then Gavin Collins and Crazy Domains will be forever associated with tasteless sexist crap.
    .-= Jamie Dowling´s last blog ..Annual LGA Jargon List =-.

  5. Gavin’s hobby must be running into walls. Repeatedly.
    This is an ableist thing to say. Not accusing Anonymous or anyone else of being a person who is ableist, but this is an ableist statement. It refers to and reinforces social structures which attribute unpleasant morally repugnant behaviour to organic brain damage caused by blunt trauma. It goes about like this:
    * Gavin Collins does something repellent.
    * People call Mr. Collins out on his repellent behaviour.
    * Mr. Collins, rather than correcting that behaviour, lashes out at those he perceives as his persecutors and files litigation against a nonexistent feminist conspiracy.
    * People suggest Mr. Collins is rather a stupid bloke by pondering on the ways Mr. Collins might have achieved that state.
    The problems with the last bit are twofold: the first is that it suggests Mr. Collins’s judgement is poor because he has the judgement of a person with repeated traumatic brain injury. And we all know what those people are like, don’t we? They’re the ones in bathrobes in institutions on TV, drooling open-mouthed and rocking back and forth in place as the Nice Healthy People look on in horror and sympathy, clucking their tongues and shaking their heads in sadness. What can one do?
    The other problem with the last bit is that calling someone stupid isn’t exactly a keen nor insightful. We have very poor definitions for what stupid is in the first place. The argument against stupid is, however, a much larger one and one I’d prefer to not have in the comments thread of someone else’s blog.
    .-= kaninchenzero´s last blog ..On Deadly Force =-.

  6. k0: Huh. I read it as someone repeatedly choosing to do something fruitless that only causes problems for himself – tapping in to the metaphor “running up against a brick wall”. I’d put deliberately making ads offensive enough to get pulled, then whingeing about it when it happens, fairly firmly in that category.

  7. “This is an ableist thing to say.”
    I suggest you check out the recently released film “Men who stare at goats”. Quite funny. It also features an army dude who repeatedly tries to run through a wall, believing that if he concentrates hard enough, he’ll make it through to the other side. Of course, inspite of repeated attempts, he fails. I suspect it wasn’t an original theme.
    I saw parallels with the hapless Mr Collins. Perhaps that is what Anon was on about.

  8. I admit, when I read Anon’s comment, I had the same reaction as kaninchenzero. I think this is worth considering, ’cause, as they say, intent is not an excuse, and if it’s that easily misinterpreted, it is problematic on some level.
    I fail to find anything but spite and sour grapes in Mr. Collins’ response, and the ads remind me of the terrible “GoDaddy” domain names ads, where they drool about how the rest of the ad featuring Danica Patrick and another woman is “too hot to show on TV!” and one should go to the site to see the rest of it. In this ridiculous complaint, he makes clear his displeasure at having his male privilege questioned.
    It’s not stupidity or banging his head against a brick wall (a problematic image in its own right), it’s spite and male privilege. And douchery. He’s an asshole.

  9. Many apologies for the poor choice in joke. I intended it as lauredhel said, but I didn’t think of the possible ablist interpretations.

  10. Anonymous, thank you — really; there’s no sarcasm here. I appreciate your being willing to consider readings you hadn’t intended and to apologise. Both can be difficult.
    Gosh hrgh what precisely would you say the joke was in that bit you related from The Men Who Stare at Goats regarding the individual convinced a person could pass through a wall without damage to either wall or person if that person only wanted to do so strongly enough? Perhaps “Insanity is repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result?” Madness is a fucking endless mine of comedy gold and never the least harmful to people with mental illness when depicted in fiction. I shall be sure to boost this piece of timeless art to the top of my Netflix queue smart quick.
    Thanks ever so for the suggestion.
    .-= kaninchenzero´s last blog ..On Deadly Force =-.

  11. …. I’m having a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the whinging that emanates from this post – “this one person hates us! and brought us down! wah wah wah!” when these folks are supposed to be adults. No, never mind that comparison, even children can be reasonable that way. This is just assholish, bullying behaviour.

  12. Hi there, just dropping in ‘cos I’m a friend of the aforementioned Evil Feminist being blamed for hurting this poor baby’s feelings and I am moved to point something out that perhaps he hasn’t noticed:
    the actual audience of the commercial includes feminists. It’s not like all feminists are sat at home reading Wollstonecraft by candlelight with our bluestockinged-feet up on a footstool fashioned from the bones of our victims and covered with the scrotal skins of all those balls we’ve broken while waiting for some new offence to be brought in on a silver platter by our eunuch. Logansrogue was watching the tv when she saw the commercial, therefore was part of the audience he mentions. What part of that is confusing?
    Oh I see… you’re only part of the audience if you don’t complain…

  13. **It’s not like all feminists are sat at home reading Wollstonecraft by candlelight with our bluestockinged-feet up on a footstool fashioned from the bones of our victims and covered with the scrotal skins of all those balls we’ve broken while waiting for some new offence to be brought in on a silver platter by our eunuch.**
    No, but that DOES sound like a good way to pass an evening!

  14. I don’t know. The footstool sounds kind of smelly.
    But A+ for imagery!

  15. It’s not like all feminists are sat at home reading Wollstonecraft by candlelight with our bluestockinged-feet up on a footstool fashioned from the bones of our victims and covered with the scrotal skins of all those balls we’ve broken while waiting for some new offence to be brought in on a silver platter by our eunuch.
    …Really?? So it is just me, then?
    Eunuch! Another platter!!

%d bloggers like this: