Telecom Spoof Ad - What you didn't realise

Forums › Spark New Zealand › Telecom Spoof Ad - What you didn't realise

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Topic # 7982 26-May-2006 07:35

It is all very well for you to laugh and then 'point the finger' when Telecom pulled the ad. That is the sort of behaviour I would expect from 'school yard bullies'.

The children in the ad are not faceless 'for hire' child actors they are actually the children of Telecom employees. Those children you have dubbed over with expletives were quite proud of the ad, they deserve to be as it was a lot of hard work.

By making fun of Telecom with your so called satire you are also making fun of the children. If it was my child I would be quite annoyed. If it was your child how would you feel???

So, before you go and judge, understand all the facts. After all that is what an intelligent person would do!

Twitter - GaryRo

1 | 2 | 3

26208 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5801

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 36649 26-May-2006 08:08

I have a friend who's Norwegian and feels extremely offended every time the Uli ad comes on TV. What is the difference?

muppet

1935 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 706

Trusted

Reply # 36656 26-May-2006 08:30

@Jama: I don't actually understand your arguement. As far as anyone is concerned, they ARE "faceless child actors" as you put it. Why does it matter if they're Telecom employees children or children from a talent agency? Are you suggesting the Telecom employee's children are more important?

How does who their parents are reflect on how proud any child would or should feel about appearing in this ad? Are you suggesting if their parents had all be garbage truck drivers they shouldn't feel as proud?

Please explain how by laughing at this ad we are also making fun of the children in it? I don't understand the connection.
In my opinion they have been used as pawns by Telecom and now used as pawns by the person making this spoof. I feel *sorry* for them, _regardless_ of which version of the ad I'm watching.

Do you not think any of the blame for this should fall on the parents for allowing their children to be used to sell products? They would be a lot more aware of the potential problems faced by having their child exposed to the world on TV than the poor child itself is aware of.

I can't say I blame Telecom for pulling the ad, it uses their brand and images in a derogatory way. I don't buy your "Please! Think of the Children!" line at all though.

Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software

stevonz

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 36657 26-May-2006 08:37

Step away from the vehicle Sir... I think you're a liitle too close to this issue. I personally don't think they were making fun of the children at all, its Telecom that we're making fun of. It's makes no difference to me whether they are children of Telecom employes or not. What if they were paid actors??

Grab a chill pill and enjoy the spoof for what it is.

Stevo

Cheers, Stevo

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 36658 26-May-2006 08:38

I disagree somewhat muppet. The children chose to appear in the ads, and put in a lot of hard work to make it happen. They did this I assume for their 15 seconds of fame (what kid wouldnt want to be on an ad), for some gain (I can only assume they were paid fairly), and on top of that, doing it for a successful NZ company that actually employs their parents and puts bread (bad pun?) on their table.

We are not making fun of the children by laughing at it, but the creator of the spoof has put swear words in their mouth. You cant tell me the kids wont see the spoof version at some point, and most of these kids are probably disciplined in some way if they swear at home. I bet until they are old enough to understand whats going on, they will feel shamed, especially in front of their parents.

Im all for parodies and lampooning of Telcos of all descriptions, but in this case, I think the children have been hard done by.

Visit http://www.thecloud.net.nz for New Zealand based Hosted Exchange, Virtual Servers, Web Hosting, FTP Backup & more.
(1GB free FTP storage, or larger plans from $5.75)

- Setup your own mailserver at home on Ubuntu Server - full step by step howto here.
- Have you seen this: Nathan "KFC4LIFE" Dunn.

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 36660 26-May-2006 08:51

Thank you Tony. I couldn't have said it better myself.

True satire would have been to lampoon the ad with adults dressed up to look like the kids. Now that would have been funny.

Twitter - GaryRo

juha

Juha
1318 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 36662 26-May-2006 09:05

Jama: Did the children actually understand what they were advertising in the first place? Did they understand the consequences of for instance being "Fast Eddie" in front of millions of viewers? In other words, was it right by Telecom to use children to advertise its services? And was it right by Telecom (and its ad agency) to expose employees' children like this? As... Telecom shills, basically. Also, it's not like Telecom told anyone that the children in the commercial are employees' ones. It doesn't make any real difference though, because every child has a parent and Telecom employees' children are just the same as everyone else's.

You want to wade through some difficult ethical and moral questions, start by answering the above. Nobody's making fun of the children in the spoof - quite the opposite actually - just Telecom. Now that is what I suspect is the motive behind your post, not the welfare of the children.

Who's laughing at being the target of "legalistic arguments" by Telecom by the way? I'm not. That DMCA nastygram wasn't nice. Don't think anyone else is either. In fact, that's bullyboy tactics.

Not sure who you're referring to when you say "you overdubbed" etc, but nobody knows who put the spoof together. Does this mean Telecom has instigated a witch hunt to find out who did the spoof?

Juha

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 36664 26-May-2006 09:15

Juha you do not really know me so judging my motive is just speculation on your part. I have no idea who put together the spoof.

As I said real satire would have been adults dressed as the children to parody the ad. Dubbing expletives onto the existing ad is just a cheap shot.

Twitter - GaryRo

muppet

1935 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 706

Trusted

Reply # 36665 26-May-2006 09:20

tonyhughes: I disagree somewhat muppet. The children chose to appear in the ads, and put in a lot of hard work to make it happen. They did this I assume for their 15 seconds of fame (what kid wouldnt want to be on an ad), for some gain (I can only assume they were paid fairly), and on top of that, doing it for a successful NZ company that actually employs their parents and puts bread (bad pun?) on their table.

I totally agree. But by doing so, not only do they gain all these positives, but also the negatives associated with being put into the public spotlight.

We are not making fun of the children by laughing at it, but the creator of the spoof has put swear words in their mouth. You cant tell me the kids wont see the spoof version at some point, and most of these kids are probably disciplined in some way if they swear at home. I bet until they are old enough to understand whats going on, they will feel shamed, especially in front of their parents.

"I bet until they are old enough to understand whats going on" - Exactly. If they're not able to understand all the ramifications that might be involved with being in the ad in the first place, why were they used in it?

Im all for parodies and lampooning of Telcos of all descriptions, but in this case, I think the children have been hard done by.

I agree. However, I don't feel it's *our* fault for laughing at them as Jama implied in his original post.

Human beings are NOT always nice people. I think it is very naive of adults to use children in advertising, then be all shocked and offended and claim "but think of the poor children" if and when it backfires in some way. If you are worried about it happening, do not place them in a position of risk in the first place.

Personally I think it's all a bit of a laugh, I'm sure once the children are old enough they'll find it a hoot as well. Considering the amount of violence and swearing children are exposed to on a daily basis on the TV, this spoof Ad is just a tiny drop in the ocean.

juha

Juha
1318 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 36666 26-May-2006 09:21

Yeah, I agree that adults would've been better - but, I'm sticking to my guns here and will say that that applies to the original ads as well. I'm not keen on commercialisation of children at all and thought the original commercials/ads were just a cheap way of trying to gain attention through the "cute children" strategy.

It's not like they're old enough to sign up for T3G or 027 accounts and be given a free rein with them anyway. When the ads came out, I couldn't see the relevance of having the children in them at all...

Juha

muppet

1935 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 706

Trusted

Reply # 36668 26-May-2006 09:25

Who's laughing at being the target of "legalistic arguments" by Telecom by the way? I'm not. That DMCA nastygram wasn't nice. Don't think anyone else is either. In fact, that's bullyboy tactics.

Is it really though? It's my understanding that if they don't act to protect their brand/identity, if they take steps to do in the future their lack of action this time around can work against them.

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 36669 26-May-2006 09:33

Exactly and Telecom is not the only company to protect their brand.

BTW - The ads surveyed well with viewers, won awards and successfully launched the T3G brand.

Twitter - GaryRo

Tokes

68 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 36672 26-May-2006 09:41

From a marketing perspective - I understand why children were used in the original ad - it alludes to the fact that it is this technology that they will be using as they get older - not the current technology.

juha

Juha
1318 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 36673 26-May-2006 09:42

muppet: [Is it really though? It's my understanding that if they don't act to protect their brand/identity, if they take steps to do in the future their lack of action this time around can work against them.

Yes, it is. All these things have to be judged in content. This was a parody on an ad, and there are countless examples of those around, many of which are far harsher than the "Telecon" one. I've got some links in my FryUp newsletter which is coming out later today.

Second, did Telecom contact me? No, they didn't. No communication at all. I'm betting that the reason for not talking to me or anyone else is because Telecom doesn't have a legal leg to stand on here. It is probably aware though that US providers like YouTube play it safe and pull stuff as soon as the "c" word is mentioned..

What's so hard to understand about all this is that Telecom is prepared to cop an enormous amount of PR fallout for the sake of what? I don't actually know that. This was a very good strategy to drive more people into the ABT camp and certainly does nothing to protect the brand....

Juha

juha

Juha
1318 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 36675 26-May-2006 09:54

Tokes:
From a marketing perspective - I understand why children were used in the original ad - it alludes to the fact that it is this technology that they will be using as they get older - not the current technology.

Bit strange dressing them up as adults though.

Juha

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 36676 26-May-2006 10:04

By the way - thankyou to all contributors of this thread for keeping this a high level conversation. I know opinions run high on topics like this...

1 | 2 | 3