Water/Scarlett/Bans/Grammar

Here’s Soda Stream’s new Superbowl ad:

It’s been banned because Scarlett says, ‘Sorry, Coke and Pepsi’, so now it’s gone viral.

So far so blah, but I would like to point to out to any of you who don’t already know, that SS is far better for the environment than bottled water, and much more convenient.

Simply fill it up with filtered tap water and you have carbonated water for less than one thousandth the cost of any of the branded bottles. You also save the many ‘food miles’ that transporting millions of litres of water requires each year, so everyone’s a winner.

(Except the grammar police. As a Detective Constable (or ‘pedant’) in that austere organisation I must point out that it’s ‘fewer bottles’, not ‘less bottles’.)

Comments 15

  1. Original Richard H wrote:

    When I read ‘Scatlett Johanssen’ and ‘banned Super Bowl ad’ I was expecting something with rather more fizz, I’m afraid. What a waste (but not of plastic bottles).

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 8:29 am
  2. steakandcheese wrote:

    I don’t quite get it. Why was this banned? Just because they call out coke and pepsi? Can’t they just re-dub that last line and run it nonetheless? Weird.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 9:42 am
  3. Public schooliboy wrote:

    I would dearly love to have a go on her tits.
    There. I’ve said it now. It’s out in the open.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 9:50 am
  4. Jim wrote:

    The ad will run during the Super Bowl break without the censored line re coke and pepsi.

    I seriously think that the ad industry should be very concerned about this form of censorship. Even if they may get more coverage in the press because of it.

    It’s ridiculous.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 10:24 am
  5. bruce wrote:

    to the people that wrote that, i’ve got some banners that need doing.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 10:40 am
  6. infoelliot wrote:

    Is the story being given extra oxygen online because of this intial shitstorm?.. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/scarlett-johansson-hits-back-at-oxfam-after-charity-criticises-ambassador-over-israeli-campaign-deal-with-sodastream-9087631.html

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 10:59 am
  7. Anonymouse wrote:

    I believe this has happened before. Bogusky isn’t so daft as to make the same mistake twice.

    This ad got banned on purpose.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 11:00 am
  8. ben wrote:

    @ Infoelliot: very interesting.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 11:17 am
  9. HB wrote:

    Everyone’s a winner: Oxfam, SS and Johanssen (and Public Schoolboy).

    It’s not going to impact on Coke or Pepsi sales one bit so they’re not fussed.

    And the lawyers involved in censoring this piece of crap aren’t wondering how they’re going to afford Christmas this year either.

    I can already see the horribly smug case study video, stating the ‘millions of impressions’ such a dynamic PR strategy delivered. And cue the bullshit awards categories climbing over themselves to lap it up.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 12:49 pm
  10. Sell! Sell! wrote:

    I’d heard about the shitstorm too, before I realised there was a banned ad. Putting the political arguments to one side, I’m with Jim on this. The idea that we are being discouraged from naming competitors in advertising by the regulators is pretty worrying. Years ago, one of our campaigns was banned from TV by the regulators because it made (true and fair) comparisons with famous competitor brands. It’s worrying trend if you believe it’s a good that some advertising can have substance to it. “Denigration” is only unfair if it isn’t true, surely?

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 12:55 pm
  11. Sell! Sell! wrote:

    PS I commend your work in the field of Grammar Policing BTW. Less/fewer – that one does my nut in.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 12:57 pm
  12. Ed wrote:

    Interesting that when I read Scarlett Johansson and ‘Banned’ I immediately thought ‘Nudity’. Then I was disappointed when I watched what is a stunningly boring advert.

    I’m pretty sure my desire to see her in the alltogether and subsequent seedy clicking makes me a bad person, but I’m conflicted so I can’t work out why just yet.

    Whatever it is, I reckon the creators are playing up to some rather unpleasant impulses for pulling the old switcheroo like that.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 2:03 pm
  13. Public schooliboy wrote:

    HB
    It’s Schooliboy. Not Schoolboy.

    Posted 29 Jan 2014 at 2:16 pm
  14. vinny warren wrote:

    The TV networks airing the super bowl relish their chance to get on a high horse, criticizing the ads for being potentially offensive to someone in some way.

    And the shit they churn out? Some cheek they have.

    Posted 30 Jan 2014 at 1:32 am
  15. HB wrote:

    Sorry Schooliboy, I meant Schoolboys

    Posted 30 Jan 2014 at 10:30 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.