



this is getting so carried away now. i love the ad and dont see the racial side to it at all. in my opinion the people that sit there and keep raving on about its racial reference are the ones who are racist. until it was brought up i just thought the ad was fun and in good entertainment.
that comment in the USA today article saying 'you wouldnt see kobe bryant jumping into a couples bed for an ad' thats because America is so hypersensitive about any reference that refers to anything is considered offensive. we are not American and we dont mean it in bad taste. dont like...? then dont watch it


Fair enough about the "in the home" coverage, watched the ad again and that makes sense. The first time I was just looking out for the controversial bit.

Oh dear, that would be very, very wrong.
BTW....
Has anyone thought to ask "Why were the couple in bed during daylight hours?" They must be shiftworkers.......

Jack, or to put it another way, imagine if he wandered into the kids room. It could go from 'cheeky' to 'very very wrong' very quickly. I guess how you react is how close to the edge you think it is.


Also Ushiro, it was discussed earlier that the reason there is no in game footage is because Foxtel would exclusively own the rights to those clips, unless you want them showing clips of the old school days, hopefully they are gathering some clips from the preseason games to get there own footage for some ads.

The scene is probably more bad taste than racist. I am not too sure the ad agency has worked out who the target market is.
Like Ushiro said, you could have had anyone do that and offend any sub-group. If he had of turning to the male and given him a wink, well....imagine that controversy!
The ad agency I believe were trying to get the message across that the NBL can be seen at home and part of the home. Simple as that. As a society, the bedroom door is normally closed so whenever any scene takes place in the bedroom, eyebrows are raised.
Overall, the advertising industry targets ads to certain markets. With women responsible for most of the household spending, most ads are filmed with women in dominant, responsible positions and the men in support, comic roles. For example, the Foxtel ad where the overweight, submissive male installer asks where the bathroom is. The man of the house misunderstands the question, whereas the "sensible, in control" woman knows what is going on. Ads are more sexist than racist, because most are targeted at women.
You can always tell in an advert who the target market is but the females in the ads. Blonde females means the ad is targeted at men. Brunette females means the ad is targeted at women.
Next ad break check it out.

But the ad was for One HD plugging their coverage of the NBL on FTA TV - it was not an ad for attending an NBL game live in person.
Hence the NBL players running amock in the family home - NBL back on FTA TV in Your Home!

.... well I supoose the black guy could have been facing the white guy and smiled but that would then have upset another group of people. The particular scene under discussion is only a very small part of the total promotion. The actual concept is similar to both soccer and AFL promotions in recent years, I would have preferred game action shots, with an appropriate music background. The aim should be to get people to games, not just throwing basketballs around the home.

One HD continued to run with the ad in full over the weekend...obviously the ad is OK otherwise the government watchdog for advertising on TV would have pulled them up already!
I definitely do not think the ad is racist, and at best the situation depicted could only be described as being in bad taste to a minute level.
Great publicity IMO for the NBL rather than being a negative.

I agree with you EC it seems a bit of a stretch. although the NBL is getting a tonne of exposure from this.

From the Ten News article
For some, it immediately evoked memories of former Sydney Kings player Bryant Matthews, who was jailed for rape when he was found in similar circumstances as an unwanted third person in bed with a couple in Sydney in 2006.
"who was jailed for rape when he was found in similar circumstances". Is this saying that Taj McCullough will be up for rape charges because of the similar circumstances of the ad to the case involving Matthews? What a load of rubbish.

I looked at the ad and didn't even think of the Bryant Matthews case. The ad depicted too much fun to connect it with Bryant Matthews. I am just wondering if its reverse psychology coming into play here by drawing attention to this ad by 3 of the legends and high profile players of the past. If its racist that a black guy ended up in bed between a white couple, would it have been racist if the couple were black and the player was white? What's the difference and would it have stirred up the same racist comments?

its a bit blown out of proportion in my opinion. at the end of the day if anyone landed in that bed next to that chick and didnt try to score her then they are clearly not heterosexual.



Just cut that scene out of the ad and move on then, keep the whingers happy.
The irony is that by bringing attention to the ad they're indirectly perpetuating the stereotype themselves.

they should have had balls land in the bed and pick up the wife. atleast he has balls!

Thanks for that CJ.
Ugh. So stupid. Way to make something out of nothing.

Every advert is in the eyes of the beholder; and media tend to overhype everything if they get the chance.
You might remember the KFC advert for the World cup in the windies where it has the Aussie amongst the Jamaicans sharing a bucket of Chicken. The ad was promoting sharing the "Cricket Bucket" because "everyone loves chicken". Naturally a sect out there auto-jump to "racial stereotypes" and call the ad "racist".
Just have to live with the fact that some people can't get their heads out of the 70's and 80's racial profiling.

Lots of publicity as it is now a feature story!
Herald-Sun: http://linky.com.au/z2tp4
I think it is in good fun...but is it bad publicity or good publicity?
