John Lewis Ad. Is all publicity really good publicity?

I think it's great. I was a bit surprised at the very early shots showing the boy wearing lipstick I imagine that the boy had a wonderful time dancing around. I wonder how many takes they had to do or maybe it was one with several different cameras place.

I'm surprised at the, mainly negative response. Surely you have better things to do?

From what Sashabel says, JL refer to the brat being ‘unaware of the unintentional consequences of his actions’. Well sorry JL’s PR agent but the insurance appears to require that the actions be unintentional, which they certainly were not, and the brat knew exactly what the consequences of those actions would be but under the terms of the insurance his awareness or lack of is irrelevant. Playful my a**e.

Off topic but not off topic….

Just had a pleasant surprise ….my household insurance premium is only £110 ……

It’s the ‘boys can do what they like’ message while girls just have to sit quietly & accept it.

I agree Kandinsky. With misogyny in the press recently, why give out this message?

I love edge of seventeen

The only thing I am irritated by is how beautiful the house is

Dreadful dreadful dreadful. It is irrelevant what he is wearing, but if he did that in my house......agh. Is that what John Lewis thinks children should be allowed to do, quite ridiculous.

The response from JL in the press following complaints about this ad is that it is a “playful storyline, adding: “He is not wilfully damaging his home and is unaware of the unintentional consequences of his actions".
This is not a "playful storyline", it is appalling behaviour. I have never raised my hand to any of my children, but I just want to give this kid a slap. If any parent brings their child up to behave like this, then all I can say is that they are raising a spoilt brat. JL had totally gone down in my estimation and their ad agency should be sacked

if he makes a habit of being so destructive (looks the type)

This just gets better and better....

I took part in the survey /questionnaire by JL on views of this Add earlier this year.
I just thought, if that child was one of mine I would not be overly chuffed! No insurance company would pay out for such willful damage done by a little brat.
Obviously JL had more positive responses than the one I submitted as everyone is commenting on it but not in a positive way, perhaps that was the cunning plan, new way of thinking about Insurance?? Which tbh is a bit boring.

Tiny dancer: www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tiny+dancer+john+lewis&docid=608023831462892010&mid=2AD7215015F2C2BE60582AD7215015F2C2BE6058&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

New ad: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5od8Wuv_AAY&t=1s

Out of interest I watched the ad on YouTube. What a brat. Then I looked at JL’s description of their cover for accidental damage to contents, though I’d say much of the havoc was mess rather than damage.. They say it covers accidental damage caused by the policy owner or their family (what about visitors - they also claim the insurance covers accidental damage caused by ‘exuberant children and their playmates’?) and go on to say ‘we define accidental damage as damage ... caused by a sudden, unforeseen and unintentional event’. I’d say the brat’s actions are intentional and if he makes a habit of being so destructive (looks the type) then it’s not unforeseen either. I think the ad is misleading as well as incredibly aggravating.

I think it will backfire when people try to claim on their insurance for that sort of damage.

grannyactivistI thought of the Tiny Dancer ad as well and I just watched it.

Today's ad - little boy dancing around, watched by his sister and mother with amazement. Doesn't break anything.

Tiny Dancer - little girl dancing around, watched by her brother and father with amazement. Doesn't break anything. Except maybe that vase at the end.

The ad agency are blooming clever. I think the reaction tells us all we need to know, really.

JL made an advert that they knew would provoke discussion. So for them, that is success.

It just encourages me to think that JL will pay out for other people's badly behaved children and careless parents - hence putting up MY insurance premiums.

It doesn't make me think JL is a professional insurance service.

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.

There seems to be a trend for potentially offensive ads, the last few years.
Just a marketing ploy, but I don't condone children being depicted like this; we have a thread about little darlings running riot in cafes and supermarkets, and this kind of thing encourages it.

The advert has served its purpose which was to draw our attention to John Lewis insurance which I didn’t know existed. It had generous free air time on channel 5 this morning while Jeremy Vine’s guests discussed it.

I was so shocked at the little boy trashing the house I didn’t notice that he was dressed as a ballerina. Apparently that was meant to shock us as well.

It’s the ‘boys can do what they like’ message while girls just have to sit quietly & accept it.
Plus the revolting sexualisation of a young boy is awful - he might as well be auditioning for RuPaul's Drag Race.
But I guess this is the world we live in now.

Now some of you have watched the ad you will understand the question I posed about publicity.

I am the mother of girls and boys. When they were small my daughters dressed up as firemen etc. and my boys had dolls (and dolly’s pushchairs) and occasionally dressed up in frocks and painted their nails, it’s perfectly normal behaviour.

What none of my children would ever have done was to engage in wilful destruction as is depicted in the advert, nor would they have been permitted to spoil a sibling’s play.

Well said Joeyjory - we're talking about JLewis.

Won’t be shopping in JL anymore.
Most offensive advert I’ve ever seen, in about 10 different ways.

Have no idea what the ad. agency was thinking !
Maybe I should change my home insurance to JL , let my GD do whatever she likes in my home then put in a claim for damages stating "free expression " the reason I should be reimbursed.

That's it for me. Goodbye JL. Changing from Waitrose to Ocado!

Galaxy

I am laughing that it's supposed to be challenging and forward thinking, it looks to me like the usual trope about passive girls and 'active' boys.

That is so true. I think JL has managed to annoy the people it was hoping to impress.

I've seen the advert. I love the visuals and the song is one of my favourites.

However, John Lewis Insurance would not pay out for any of these breakages, damage etc etc so I'm not sure of the point.

But I like it.

If that makes sense

And of course many people are now talking about it, so job done I'd have thought.