Me again! It’s that chap you seldom hear from, because my role in advertising is not really talked about. It’s rare to be relevant. And just like that, we have two notable campaigns in as many weeks.

​

The first revolves around that divisive public figure, Jeremy Clarkson. Not a stranger to controversy, whether it be having a ‘fracas’ with one of his producers on Top Gear (and getting the show ultimately cancelled in the process), to expanding his farm venture to a level beyond what might be deemed reasonable for a quiet countryside village – the man just seems to attract drama in whatever he’s doing.

​

That said, if there’s one thing he does do very well – it’s court public opinion. As a farmer myself, I’m all too aware of the quite frankly insane challenges the profession faces on a near daily basis. And if you asked any of my farming friends, their opinion of him would be unanimous (and it might shock you) – he has done more for farming in the last 5 years of Clarkson’s Farm, than any other celebrity of note in decades. Your average audience is finally realising just how difficult it can be to farm. Love him or hate him, the man’s words do have clout – even if the reality presented in his shows is very carefully and precisely manufactured entertainment.

So naturally, for the next stage of his empire - Clarkson launched a beer – Hawkstone Lager. Because there’s nothing easier to advertise than alcohol. I’ve tried it – the beer, I mean – It’s not that bad (if overpriced). Guess you pay a premium for the Clarkson name (and given the prices at his Diddily Squat farm, that is evidentiary).

​

But what came next – oh no! News that the advert that he made to promote the beer, had been ‘banned’. It’s not hard to see why. The campaign features an expletive laden song sung by a choir of farmers (what else), about how the beer is ‘so fucking good’.

Anyone that had worked in advertising for more than 10 minutes would have known It wouldn’t fly – and would have been told as much from the moment the script went into Clearcast.

Only it never did. The ad was never even submitted – in any form – to be reviewed for broadcast. If it had, they would have been told unceremoniously that swearing in advertising – even implied swearing – is a no go. My sister learned that recently – but more on that later.

​

It’s likely the producers knew that the only thing better than a well-planned TV campaign, is the outrage that can be generated on social media from something that is ‘banned’. It gets people riled up – regardless of their stance.

Iceland and Greenpeace faced something similar about 5 years ago with their controversial ‘Rang-Tang’ advert, lamenting the continued existence of palm oil. They approached the situation somewhat differently - the advert, that was first made for Greenpeace – was promptly rejected, because they are an organisation that campaigns politically. They tried to save face, by effectively rebranding it as a campaign for Iceland – but no dice. It was the same one that was previously rejected. So, they made a big public statement about it, that wasn’t entirely accurate. What followed? Controversy. Outrage. Poor Clearcast faced an avalanche of negative publicity for being the evil advertising overlords that hated orangutangs for some reason. Only they didn’t – they were simply applying the same rules they had to everyone else. And what happened to Iceland? They sold 50,000 cuddly toys, and it became one of the most successful Christmas campaigns to date. All via word of mouth, social media, and a whole lot of hearsay. Clarkson will likely see a similar positive result – it’s telling that he’s already released a second ‘banned’ advert. His team knows exactly what they’re doing.

 

And that leads me to my next example – Sydney Sweeney’s recent campaign for American Eagle’s ‘good jeans’. Somewhat more controversial than Clarkson, the blue eyed, blonde haired actress coyly sells the product in a simple way – telling the audience she’s not there to sell comfy jeans that make your butt look ‘amazing’. The ad ends with the tagline ‘Sydney Sweeney has great jeans’. She even asks “See what I did there?”. Jeans. Genes. And a spot of reverse psychology. I thought it was quite clever - but then again, I just love semantics - and Sydney Sweeney. But it was certainly on the nose. People from both sides of the debate are up in arms about this one. America’s more liberal leaning news sources shocked that the brand would so brazenly make racial allegories to eugenics (and have interpreted it as nazi propaganda). Those on the more right-leaning side of the media are hailing it a victory for common sense advertising and proclaiming that ‘woke is dead’. And what happened during all this controversy? American Eagle’s stock price soared 18%. It’s hard to doubt that this was not intentional.

 

Perhaps they learned from other campaigns that suffered from an unintentional fallout – the example that come to mind would be Protein World’s ‘Beach Body Ready’ campaign from 10 years ago. Yet – I remember it. Sex sells – it always has. But it attracts controversy. Remember Brooke Shields’ infamous campaign from 1980? I actually don’t – I wasn’t born yet (sorry). But it’s still being talked about – if perhaps for the wrong reasons (she was only 15 at the time, and has since stated how she didn’t even know what was going on during filming). Yet, is still proud of how it ‘pushed the envelope’.

As far as an ‘official’ response goes, American Eagle were quoted as saying the following: "This is yet another example of how social media is just not reflective of real life," (an American Eagle rep told TMZ July 30). "The absurd response from some corners of the internet is absolutely not reflective of how American Eagle's customers feel." Sweeney herself was apparently involved in shaping the campaign too – when asked ‘how far to take it’, Sweeney replied, “Let’s push it, I’m game.” (Ashley Schapiro, American Eagle’s vice president of marketing, shared in a LinkedIn post). It was certainly bold - outrage as a strategy seems shockingly effective these days. Those that agree with your brand/ad’s message will likely be your target audience anyway – and it will work wonders with them. Those that don’t agree, are unlikely to be converted regardless.

​

It begs the question of just who advertisers need to target. Is it everybody – regardless of their demographic? Or should they solely focus their campaign only to those to whom it might be relevant? Do we need to even bother – just for the sake of inclusivity? Another campaign that comes to mind is Jaguar’s recent ‘disastrous’ rebrand. Or so you might think. ‘They managed to alienate their core customers, and not attract any new ones – sales were reported to have crashed by 97.5%’, said news sources.

​

Although – Jaguar have pretty much stopped selling cars. The pink e-type featured in the ad was only a concept. The narrative pushed by the media became the ‘truth’ – even though it was nothing but. It certainly got people talking about Jaguar again though – which hadn’t been the case for a long time. Personally, I’m still saving up for that gorgeous 1956 Roadster from ‘Cruel Intentions though.

It should be noted that Sweeney’s Campaign was similar to Iceland’s – in that it was for a charitable cause (a fact that seems to be largely absent from the loud conversation being had). 100% of sales from the campaign are going directly to Crisis Text Line, a charity that offers confidential mental health support to victims of domestic abuse. So some good will come from it all.

​

Speaking of controversial campaigns for things, I did mention my sister’s one earlier – so here’s the aforementioned shameless plug – she’s a speech coach, that has recently written a book called ‘Just F**king Say it’ – the ultimate guide to public speaking’. Available on Waterstones, Amazon, and other places. Clearcast even considered allowing broadcast of an advert concept I scripted for it, despite the implied rude name – owing to the fact it carried a noble message. But ultimately, the same rules got applied. Not rejected – just not allowed in its current form. But it’s hard to sell a book when you can’t say the title. (That said, if that sounds of interest or use to you, please do buy a copy). 

​

What am I trying to say here? I’m not sure I know myself. Sex sells? Controversy drives advertising? Don’t let your campaign be driven by the loudest, smallest minority on social media?

​

It’s a very new (and constantly) changing landscape to navigate. But – it’s a conversation. It’s keeping us reading, talking, and learning. And hopefully, the conversation will keep going. Well I’ll tell you this much – I recently checked out the American Eagle website. Expecting to only find skinny jeans for glamourous skinny blonde women – I was pleasantly surprised to find that they not only sell men’s jeans too – they even ship to the UK, and are surprisingly affordable.

​

This is not a plug for their site. But I can now confirm that I also, now have great jeans. Harry Ashfield is Pashn’s Creative Services Director. He also runs Clearance.TV, a company that specialises in legal clearance work for TV around the world. He also likes to write in the 3rd person, and can be found on LinkedIn or contacted via email.

​