Being at home, taking in ads as a consumer, is weird. Simply absorbing
them in the way they were intended always leaves me bemused by much
subsequent press coverage. Sometimes it’s that unremarkable ads actually
receive any press coverage at all, sometimes it’s a cause of wonder that
the media is so compliant in swallowing the spin-doctors’ angle, and
most often it’s a problem recognising that the ad I’ve consumed is the
one being written about.
The new Peugeot 306 film, featuring a thirtysomething couple apparently
reminiscing about their frolicsome pre-parenthood days, is a perfect
example. It’s a charming, stylish film, shot with great timing and wit,
to the accompaniment of a superb soundtrack. I’ve seen it several times
over the past few days, so it’s just as well that I’m in the target
market. I liked it a lot - the characters are sympathetic and the car
appears very attractive.
Then, suddenly, it’s on Radio 4, Talk Radio, and most of page three in
the Daily Express. Peterborough man is ‘outraged’. In the Express, the
Church of England said it would be watching the Peugeot ad carefully to
make sure it met decency standards, while on Radio 4 a vicar had already
been roped in to say: ‘Tsk, adults, even parents, do get up to other
pleasurable activities, you know.’
Oh, I nearly forgot - in case you haven’t seen it - the things the
couple get up to include: kissing under water, dressing up in rubber and
squirting each other with water pistols, a pillow fight, and being
caught by a policeman getting steamy in the back of a car. This last
activity passed so quickly in the ad that I was grateful to my church-
going mother-in-law for pointing it out to me. She thought the film
charming, aunty Jane thought it amusing. Granted, it’s an unusually sad
family that is forced to watch ads by a bemused advertising journalist,
but I couldn’t raise a murmur of disquiet. It did spark off a lively
debate about the pros and cons of snogging underwater, though.
I guess there will be a few complaints - not least because the seeds of
unease have now been planted in people’s minds. This forces me to
revisit the sentence at the top of this column about ‘simply absorbing
them in the way they were intended’. This assumption is incorrect on two
levels: first, we no longer take in ads through their paid-for media
alone - they develop a life of their own through editorial coverage;
second, this is now the way savvy advertisers intend their ads to be
consumed. This situation will persist as long as journalists have ever
more blank space or airtime to fill. The ad industry should enjoy its
good fortune - it’s all a darn sight easier than the old days of praying
that your catchy Shake ’n’ Vac jingle would catch on.
