John Lewis Ad. Is all publicity really good publicity?

JaneJudge

I've put on some overalls and and I'm spraying lynx onto the carpets whilst singing football chants

Hahaha
Go Girl !

It’s a poor advert on many levels IMHO.

I was really ‘taken aback’ when I saw this advert. Couldn’t help thinking would they really pay out if a child was allowed to cause this kind of destruction and mess with the parent just allowing it to happen. It is definitely misrepresentation and I’m very surprised that such a company like John Lewis thought it was ok to show. Makes me wonder what their Christmas advert will be like!!

grannyactivist

Some years ago there was a very similar ad (without the intentional destruction) from JL featuring a little girl, it’s called Tiny Dancer. If you watch and compare the two (sorry I’m on my iPad and can’t link them) I’d be interested to know your thoughts.

I thought the Tiny Dancer ad was funny. It showed a little girl, dancing joyously but oh so clumsily! Inadvertently bumping into picture frames on the staircase, knocking unawares into a vase. She was sweet. A baby elephant who was imaging she was Darcey Bussell!

This ad? Not in the least comparable. The little boy in this one is very self aware, wilfully spoiling things, crashing into lamps and watching their destruction with awe. Is he meant to be ‘on the spectrum’? Seems so to me. Mum & sister don’t seem shocked, just looking on with quiet resignation as though this isn’t unusual behaviour.

As a home insurance cover provider I think JL are being disingenuous. No way would they accept a claim for such destruction by a family member!

A baby elephant.

Really? ?‍♀️

Okay. Not PC nowadays.
Another well known phrase that’s no longer allowed. Used for years to convey a youngster crashing clumsily about.

Sack cloth and ashes for me then.
?

I just find it strange that they portray a badly behaved child on a insurance ad.

What, stranger than a talking Russian meerkat, his adopted meerkat cubs (kittens?) and his faithful retainer that he lives with?

baby meerkats are called pups.

I love that every day is a school day for me on GN josieanne!

I read on another forum where a poster wrote that she works in insurance, and more people are starting to claim for things like this since watching the advert, of course it is not covered. I have a sence of humour, but that advert was not funny, it was just bad behaviour by that child acting for the advert.

No it was not in the least funny, whereas the meerkats are. Well. IMHO anyway.

I saw the advert in the break in Grantchester last night, for the first time.

If I hadn’t read about it on GN, I would have struggled to work out what it was all about.

The house looked like a trailer for a Kim and Aggie programme.

Stop letting your grandchildren wreck the house folks as your insurance company isn’t going to pay up. Now there’s a surprise!

amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/27/john-lewis-pulls-controversial-advert-for-being-potentially-misleading

Yes the ad has been removed as it’s misleading. They wouldn’t pay out for deliberate damage.

Well it won’t be shown any more
www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/27/john-lewis-pulls-controversial-advert-for-being-potentially-misleading

Baby elephants are sweet. Deliberately destructive children are not.

JL really got that wrong! Let's hope they bin that advertising agency and hope they haven't used them for the Christmas one... Could be expensive?

John Lewis remains a positive in my life. So many individual clothes shops have closed that I’m driven to JL for jeans and jumpers. Ours is nicely laid out and they welcome my spaniel, as well as selling decent duvet covers (and wallpaper)
The ad is a great success as it’s created so much JL chatter

Chatter of the wrong sort though.

I find it extraordinary that presumably, no one involved in the advert could foresee the problem with it.
I mean, John Lewis of all shops.

The whole theme was wilful damage, and as far as I am aware that’s never been covered by insurance.

How on earth did they get it so wrong?

I bet this was the brainchild of a group of people who have never cleaned up in their lives, and see vandalism as funny.

The whole theme was wilful damage, and as far as I am aware that’s never been covered by insurance. One problem was people querying this very point on JL's twitter account kept getting the reply that children's damage is considered accidental as they're just unaware so it would be covered, as long as you had their optional accidental damage add-on. Their underwriters knew full well that a trail of damage such as that depicted wouldn't be covered at all, but it took FCA intervention to take it down.

A stupid advert to say the least.
I just hope that no children will think that`s a fun thing to do.
Bye Bye JL

Thing is, he wasn’t a three year old who has little ( or no ) concept of the damage they do. He must have been at least ten!

Ridiculous advert that will definitely damage their brand.