Few ads in recent memory have caused a furore like the recent Meat and Livestock Australia campaign.
The ad, from creative house The Monkeys, drew a lot of public attention – 1.7 million views so far, to be exact – and both the praise and envy of creatives across the country. AdNews' very own Rosie Baker showed a hint of nostalgia for the UK in saying that to her, the anticipation for the Australia Day commercial is the only comparable Australian event to the annual launch of John Lewis Christmas ads.
Not all the attention was positive. Commentators took issue with the mention of Indigenous iconography in an advertisement celebrating at controversial event for Australia's first people; others felt the violence in the ad was extreme for a meat product.
A vocal minority of vegans were frothing at the mouth: in fact the vast majority of the near 650 complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB), were over the depiction of a vegan's kale being set on fire.
I'm a coeliac, one of the many who had no problem at all with the jibe about going gluten-free in the 2015 MLA commercial, but can appreciate that criticism of the ad wasn't necessarily over the creative itself, or the joke – more the politics behind it.
Which is one of the challenges the advertising watchdog deals with on a daily basis. So often complaints don't touch the rules set out in the AANA's very comprehensive code of ethics but instead question the moral code by which society behaves.
These issues seem to be the complaints that really take hold. Before the MLA ad became the most complained about advertisement in ASB history, an Ashley Madison ad previously held the title. The ad, by most codes of standards, was relatively tame. It featured a bunch of fully dressed men, smiling and singing a catchy tune. That the jingle had the lyrics “I'm looking for someone other than my wife” quickly became the crux of the issue and the source of moral outrage over philandering husbands.
Time after time that ad was dismissed by the ASB with it acknowledging that “most of the complaints are related to a moral objection to the product itself”. Eventually, given the high number of complaints, it was reviewed and ultimately canned.
Should it have been removed? That's a debate for another time. But just because an ad offends a viewer’s sensibilities, doesn't mean an advertiser has acted irresponsibly or contravened the rules.
The ASB is often criticised for being slow on the uptake, with many saying it can't move at the pace of culture. At the tail end of last year, the Obesity Policy Coalition, called the self-regulation process we have in Australia “a slow, complex” complaints system which renders self-regulation of advertising inefficient.
I disagree – and the MLA ad is again a case in point. Here, the ASB sped up its process to reflect the high number of complaints and made a ruling within a week.
Self-regulation is a necessary and important part of the industry. As ASB CEO Fiona Jolly has rightly said on a number of occasions: “The beauty of our system is we can respond to changing community standards – an advertisement that was OK 10 years ago won't necessarily be now.”