Aussie parents afraid toddlers will hijack their cars

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2007-02-27 03:01am

There's always a funny title for any story

AN award-winning TV commercial showing a toddler driving a four-wheel-drive has been pulled off the air.

The Advertising Standards Board said it had banned the ad for Hyundai's Sante Fe 4WD after more than 80 viewer complaints.

But Hyundai said the ad - an award winner in New Zealand where it was produced - had been "exceptionally popular" and that it was "disappointed" with the board's decision.

The ad shows the toddler driving the car, picking up a hitch-hiking girl of similar age, and taking her to a beach.

ASB Mark Jeanes said the ad depicted an illegal driving practice.

"The board acknowledged that the notion of a toddler driving a car was fanciful," he said.

"But under the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice, fantasy cannot be used when it contradicts, circumvents or undermines the code.

"Many of the complaints were from parents concerned that the ad would encourage copy-cat behaviour in young children and might lead to accidents."

The board also found that the fact the toddlers were wearing seatbelts - instead of approved child restraints - also breached safety recommendations.

Hyundai spokesman Richard Power said the ad was aimed at adults and while it had a PG rating it was aired during the adult time slot of 8.30pm to midnight.

"The ad is aimed at adults and its blatant fantasy is the foil for the literal liberties taken in the driving sequences," Mr Power said.

It's always good to find out that America doesn't have a monopoly on crazy-assed overprotective parents.

Also, Australia has a Comics Code Authority for car commercials?

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2007-02-27 05:29am

Australia has this thing called true in Advertising. You just arent allowed to put anything you feel like in an advert.

I know the truth isnt something you are exposed to much on American TV, especially in adverts, but the regulation Australia performs on adverts is a good thing.

Walsh · Post by **Walsh** » 2007-02-27 06:39am

#1. Only 80 complaints? It gets taken off the air over 80 complaints? Jesus christ.
#2. How exactly do 80 complaints make Australian parents "crazy assed" and "over-protective"?
#3. How is this news-worthy?

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-27 08:21am

Xon wrote:Australia has this thing called true in Advertising. You just arent allowed to put anything you feel like in an advert.

I know the truth isnt something you are exposed to much on American TV, especially in adverts, but the regulation Australia performs on adverts is a good thing.

God forbid that creativity and imagination is applied to commercials. They certainly can't depict anything but stark reality to market their products.

I guess because Australians are too fucking stupid to realize that toddlers can't drive cars.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2007-02-27 08:29am

I bought a Gecko but it doesn't talk in a soothing British accent, or even talk at all. DAMN YOU GEICO! I wish I lived in Australia.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2007-02-27 08:30am

No, but stupid kids might get an idea and go play with the wheels and end up killing someone.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-02-27 11:31am

This is real easy. All these irate parents needs to do is to make sure that the keys to their cars are out of reach of their kids.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-27 12:05pm

But...but........but........ then they would have to pay attention to their kids, who in their right minds wants to do that when you can instead simply plop them in front of the TV and go get drunk or something.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-02-27 03:25pm

Truth in advertising isn't actually a bad idea. Does it keep out those McDonalds adds that we get with the Olympic triathletes?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-02-27 04:41pm

why am I now picturing radical ed with her remote control....

opps pilot error..

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2007-02-27 05:41pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:God forbid that creativity and imagination is applied to commercials. They certainly can't depict anything but stark reality to market their products.

If telling the truth is so fucking hard, maybe they should get a better product to sell? So they dont need to lie to sell it.

Next you'll be claiming having advertisement of prescription medicines is a good idea.

I guess because Australians are too fucking stupid to realize that toddlers can't drive cars.

Little kids dont need any more advice on how todo stupid things.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-02-27 06:11pm

Xon wrote:
I guess because Australians are too fucking stupid to realize that toddlers can't drive cars.
Little kids dont need any more advice on how todo stupid things.

Yeah, but how far do you take this? The fact is that no child would be able to start, let alone drive away a car (shot of hot-wiring it) if the keys are kept out of the child's reach. We don't need to child-proof everything because a few kids might take mommy's car for a spin.

Methinks this is much ado about nothing. Unless there is a rash of hundreds of kiddies making off with their parents' cars, this is a non issue and nothing but fear-mongering.

QueerIngo · Post by **QueerIngo** » 2007-02-27 06:35pm

Next you'll be claiming having advertisement of prescription medicines is a good idea. Rolling Eyes

There's been several advertisements on in the US recently that advertise medication- without ever mentioning the name of the medication. Is there some sort of rule that you don't have to follow if you never actually name a specific medication, even though it directs you to a company-sponsored Web site which then sells the drug?

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-02-27 06:46pm

Why the assumption that the car manufacturers are lying? There is a difference between intentionally trying to make a deceptive advertisement and using fantastical elements to attract attention.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-02-27 06:48pm

The article doesn't mention a 'fear' that toddlers will hijack cars by lawmakers: merely that the ad depicts illegal activities. Crazy parent complaints aside (and parents always complain about dumb shit) the authorities simply focus on the law, ie that such fanciful content cannot be used when it goes against the code. They *know* it's fanciful, but it's also illegal.

Kinda lame, but suggesting no fantasy is used in advertising in AU is utterly retarded. You just can't lie about things that are illegal to lie about - in this case, the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice apparently prevents exactly this kind of advertising.

Claiming that it's the death of 'creativity and imagination' to expect advertisers to follow the required codes of practice is pretty funny. Oh wait, we had the transforming car ads, right? OH NOES BAN IT... wait... that didn't happen. I guess KK is wrong again.

FST, it's a voluntary code of practice. They MUST have read it, and it this ad violates it. Who's fault is that?

QueerIngo · Post by **QueerIngo** » 2007-02-27 06:56pm

Why the assumption that the car manufacturers are lying? There is a difference between intentionally trying to make a deceptive advertisement and using fantastical elements to attract attention.

Apparently the law in Australia doesn't make that distinction, which really doesn't surprise me (we have plenty of equally stupid laws over in the US). The real issue, I think, is that Australians are all totally unaware of illegal activity, and so this ad might lead to them committing crimes they didn't know existed before </sarcasm>. Is there something special about a commercial that makes it an especially heinous method of depicting illegal activities, or are movie villains banned in Australia too?

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2007-02-27 06:59pm

FSTargetDrone wrote:Yeah, but how far do you take this? The fact is that no child would be able to start, let alone drive away a car (shot of hot-wiring it) if the keys are kept out of the child's reach. We don't need to child-proof everything because a few kids might take mommy's car for a spin.

Methinks this is much ado about nothing. Unless there is a rash of hundreds of kiddies making off with their parents' cars, this is a non issue and nothing but fear-mongering.

Advertising Standards bureau webpage in an industry self-regulating body which handles complaints on behalf of people.

About ASB > The Advertising Standards Board wrote: The Board considers written complaints about advertisements in the mainstream media, using the AANA Advertiser Code of Ethics The AANA Children's Code and the FCAI Code as the basis of its determinations. Among other things, it considers advertisements which people find offensive on the basis of:

discrimination (race, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, political belief)
violence
language
portrayal of sex, sexuality or nudity
health and safety
alarm or distress to children.

Exactly on the subject matter. Oh and that reminds me;

Teh law says wrote:False, misleading and deceptive advertising is illegal and can result in large fines.

QueerIngo wrote:There's been several advertisements on in the US recently that advertise medication- without ever mentioning the name of the medication. Is there some sort of rule that you don't have to follow if you never actually name a specific medication, even though it directs you to a company-sponsored Web site which then sells the drug?

I havent seen an Ad in Australia doing that. All the medicine ads I've ever seen are strickly about over the counter stuff, stuffed with warnings about the product and with the name cleary stated.

Some info about the fair trading laws covering advertising (fairtrading is a nation wide, but this is the easiest link to find)

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-02-27 07:02pm

QueerIngo wrote:Apparently the law in Australia doesn't make that distinction, which really doesn't surprise me (we have plenty of equally stupid laws over in the US). The real issue, I think, is that Australians are all totally unaware of illegal activity, and so this ad might lead to them committing crimes they didn't know existed before </sarcasm>. Is there something special about a commercial that makes it an especially heinous method of depicting illegal activities, or are movie villains banned in Australia too?

Yeah it'd be nice if they were operating under a sort of 'code of practice' that prohibited such advertising, then they would have known beforehand, right? OH WAIT.

I think this reaction is pretty funny. Clearly, if an ad is bought to the attention of the authorities by stupid parent complaints and it turns out the ad is BREAKING THE LAW, it's hysterical and insane and proves Australians are stupid to take it off the air!

If anything, it proves there should be more examination of ads to ensure compliance, particularly in areas like car advertising that have extra restrictions.

OH WAIT WE BAN MOVIE VILLIANS WATLOL.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-02-27 07:04pm

My dad's car was once hijacked by a toddler. Though granted it was entirely on accident. The car was parked on a slope and my dad forgot to put in the handbrake. So when I got into the driver's seat and started to play at driver, the car suddenly began to roll when I went and put the shift-stick in neutral.

The car only suffered a broken light and a bent bumper, since it only rolled like 10-20 meters before I smashed it into the mountain-side.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2007-02-27 07:06pm

QueerIngo wrote:Is there something special about a commercial that makes it an especially heinous method of depicting illegal activities, or are movie villains banned in Australia too?

Personally I'm kinda curious how you maked the leap from advertising which is suposed to describe a product and why someone should buy it to fullblown fantasy with utterly no connection to reality.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-02-27 07:18pm

Dumb things that people complain about on TV really need their own add. There was a show that did a segment on the TVNZ complaints department once, people were finding the most inane shit to whine about. Use of the terms "bugger" and "cock-up" came up regularly (the later being a colloquialism for 'mistake'.)

Anyway, that is actually quite similar to the run of NZ Telecom ads that we had to put up with recently which showed kids in a variety of business situations using various Telecom cellular and internet products, usually following with the tagline "Are you coming with us?" Now, this may be a personal thing, but personally I find using kids for this particular variety of advertising creepy.

QueerIngo · Post by **QueerIngo** » 2007-02-27 08:35pm

Personally I'm kinda curious how you maked the leap from advertising which is suposed to describe a product and why someone should buy it to fullblown fantasy with utterly no connection to reality.

Because that's what the parents were complaining about according to the OP: that the commercial depicted things which are stupid, dangerous and illegal, never mind that these things are shown all the time on TV, movies, radio, the Internet, you name it. I didn't see anything mentioned about how realistic the commercial was as a problem.

My dad's car was once hijacked by a toddler. Though granted it was entirely on accident.

So your father left you, in the car, while the car was still running, long enough for you to get into the driver's seat and shift the gear?

and it turns out the ad is BREAKING THE LAW, it's hysterical and insane and proves Australians are stupid to take it off the air!

Neat, how you treat the law like it's some sort of sacred, unalterable moral code Handed Down from On High (tm). To substitute a different situation into your quote:

I think this reaction is pretty funny. Clearly, if a (1950's era civil rights protest) is bought to the attention of the authorities by stupid (vigilante) complaints and it turns out the (protest) is BREAKING THE LAW, it's hysterical and insane and proves (Americans) are stupid to take it off the (street)!:roll:

Or another version:

I think this reaction is pretty funny. Clearly, if a (1800's labor union) is bought to the attention of the authorities by stupid (corporate) complaints and it turns out the (union) is BREAKING THE LAW, it's hysterical and insane and proves (the British) are stupid to (shut it down)!

Or yet another version:

I think this reaction is pretty funny. Clearly, if (the abolitionist movement) is bought to the attention of the authorities by stupid (slaveowner) complaints and it turns out the (movement) is BREAKING THE LAW, it's hysterical and insane and proves (Americans) are stupid to take it off the (political agenda)!

I'm sure you could think of more stupid things that this "logic" can be used to justify.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-27 09:08pm

Stark wrote:Kinda lame, but suggesting no fantasy is used in advertising in AU is utterly retarded. You just can't lie about things that are illegal to lie about - in this case, the Advertising for Motor Vehicles Voluntary Code of Practice apparently prevents exactly this kind of advertising.

So if they had included a disclaimer stating that babies are not actually driving the car, this is a computer simulation and not depicting real events then it would be allowed?

I'm honestly wondering how draconian these rules are, babies driving cars doesn't strike me as an illegal advertising method, though when applied to smoking or drinking I see where it breaks down.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-02-27 09:41pm

QueerIngo wrote:Neat, how you treat the law like it's some sort of sacred, unalterable moral code Handed Down from On High (tm). To substitute a different situation into your quote:

Go fuck yourself and your strawmen, tryhard. The Australian regulations on motor vehicle advertising are compared to repression of free speech now? Grow the fuck up. For an example of someone with a brain who can disagree without making themselves look like an idiot, let's look at KK.

KrauserKrauser wrote:So if they had included a disclaimer stating that babies are not actually driving the car, this is a computer simulation and not depicting real events then it would be allowed?

It's an interesting idea, given the very common 'filmed under controlled conditions' and 'simulated' and 'professional driver shown' text on various motor vehicle ads in Australia. I don't know if it would pass muster on this sort of thing, though - kids in cars is a safety issue with a lot of public awareness here.

KrauserKrauser wrote:I'm honestly wondering how draconian these rules are, babies driving cars doesn't strike me as an illegal advertising method, though when applied to smoking or drinking I see where it breaks down.

The article makes it sound like they simply nailed the ad on technicalities - for instance, depiciting infants wearing regular seatbelts (which is dangerous, and illegal in Australia).

Oh wait, did I interrupt the lameass noob cut n pasting other people's posting styles? For shame! At least he didn't bother actually addressing any points at all. The jump from advertising to fiction... what's that? RAR RAR REPRESSION.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-27 09:48pm

Stark wrote:It's an interesting idea, given the very common 'filmed under controlled conditions' and 'simulated' and 'professional driver shown' text on various motor vehicle ads in Australia. I don't know if it would pass muster on this sort of thing, though - kids in cars is a safety issue with a lot of public awareness here.

What if they weren't toddlers but teenagers, or even preteens not needing safety seats, what then?

Honestly the restriction seems a bit arbitrary, and abitrary restrictions have a nasty habit of restricting creativity.