Sainsbury's Christmas Ad

[msr]

I disagree that it is "accurate", It is far from it.
WW1 Army Officers wrote about how shocked they were at the malnourished and unhealthy condition of the soldiers who joined up. The advert is overly sentimental and glosses over the very real poverty of the working class (who were the vast majority of the population) and also the horrors of the war. Downton Abbey I think does this glossy sanitised version of history as well

It is bad taste and I don't think it should have been done . It seems to me like exploitation and done for profits

I'm not altogether sure of the accuracy of that statement.   Surely it could not possibly cover every officer and volunteer.   Perhaps some officers wrote that some volunteers appeared to be malnourished, which is quite possibly the case.

I'm still of the opinion that there is nothing to complain about, not like some of the crass adverts currently on TV encouraging overindulgence, overspending, and worse yet, taking out loans which are going to be difficult to repay.

[sallyyorks]

I disagree that it is "accurate", It is far from it.
WW1 Army Officers wrote about how shocked they were at the malnourished and unhealthy condition of the soldiers who joined up. The advert is overly sentimental and glosses over the very real poverty of the working class (who were the vast majority of the population) and also the horrors of the war. Downton Abbey I think does this glossy sanitised version of history as well

It is bad taste and I don't think it should have been done . It seems to me like exploitation and done for profits

I'm not altogether sure of the accuracy of that statement.   Surely it could not possibly cover every officer and volunteer.   Perhaps some officers wrote that some volunteers appeared to be malnourished, which is quite possibly the case.

I'm still of the opinion that there is nothing to complain about, not like some of the crass adverts currently on TV encouraging overindulgence, overspending, and worse yet, taking out loans which are going to be difficult to repay.

Thankyou for correcting my typo , not sure if i should have added a ' to "Officers" or not

According to this book it was probably more than just "some" and more like the majority. Before WW1 the army had to change its enlistment qualifications. Have read about it other books too

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1333
In chapter two, Duffett provides the background story of British army food provisioning during the 19th century, depicting it as pitifully inadequate. The army was, in fact, the employer of next-to-last resort, slightly preferable to the workhouse. The men who did enlist in this low status job were already malnourished and physically underdeveloped; the army conceded this when it lowered the height requirement, first by three inches (to 5 ft. 3 in.) and later by another two inches, in order to let enough men into the ranks. Army rations did little to improve the health of rankers.
The Stomach for Fighting: Food and the Soldiers of the Great War
Rachel Duffett
Manchester University Press

Its mentioned a few times in this book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Voices-Great-War-History/dp/0091888875


Yet the clean and fresh Tommy in the advert looks like he has always been eating a Sunday dinner three times a day 

[Musicman]

I’m surprised by comments that the advert is not accurate.  Is it supposed to be an accurate representation? It is, after all, only a TV commercial - which are not known for their accuracy,

I was interested in statements in an article in the Financial Times: “While the advertisement, in partnership with the Royal British Legion, has been viewed 4.5m times on YouTube, the Advertising Standards Authority has received 137 complaints about it.”  AND 

“Four years ago, a John Lewis Christmas ad featuring a dog outside in a kennel in snowy weather received 316 complaints. The ASA decided not to investigate.” www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e20acad0-6c20-11e4-b939-00144feabdc0.html

[John915]

Good evening,

I had not seen the ad until tonight, and then only because I clicked on the link given. I have watched the ad and the 2 videos about it's making before deciding on whether it is OK.

I appreciate that every one is entitled to their own point of view but lets look at it logically.

There is no mention of Sainsbury's until the end followed by the Legion title.

There is no mention of encouraging people to rush down to Sainsbury's to do all their Christmas shopping. The only thing shown is a bar of chocolate which they would like you to buy and all proceeds from that go to the RBL, not into Sainsbury's coffers. It then says that Christmas is a time for sharing, which it is, some share more than others but that is a personal thing.

In Dec 1914 only the regular army and the Territorials were in France. They were all well fed and even after 5 months on the front line, although maybe a little hungry, were not malnourished. The talk of people joining up who were malnourished was started after conscription, 1916, when we had to start taking on more and more young men. Some not so young, my Great uncle was 36 and was dead a year later.

I can find nothing wrong with the ad and see no reason for it to be stopped.

John915

[IMBER]

Well said John15 re the condition of the soldiers at that time. You just beat me to it.

Imber

[sallyyorks]

Good evening,

I had not seen the ad until tonight, and then only because I clicked on the link given. I have watched the ad and the 2 videos about it's making before deciding on whether it is OK.

I appreciate that every one is entitled to their own point of view but lets look at it logically.

There is no mention of Sainsbury's until the end followed by the Legion title.

There is no mention of encouraging people to rush down to Sainsbury's to do all their Christmas shopping. The only thing shown is a bar of chocolate which they would like you to buy and all proceeds from that go to the RBL, not into Sainsbury's coffers. It then says that Christmas is a time for sharing, which it is, some share more than others but that is a personal thing.

In Dec 1914 only the regular army and the Territorials were in France. They were all well fed and even after 5 months on the front line, although maybe a little hungry, were not malnourished. The talk of people joining up who were malnourished was started after conscription, 1916, when we had to start taking on more and more young men. Some not so young, my Great uncle was 36 and was dead a year later.

I can find nothing wrong with the ad and see no reason for it to be stopped.

John915

The point I was trying to make is that people were already malnourished before the war had even started. Some men, and boys for that matter, joined the army because they would get meals, clothes and boots. It was already seen as an alternative to unemployment / low wages or the workhouse.

The first audio clip in this link is of an ex WW1 soldier , looking back at the times and how he felt about conditions before and during  the war
1. An ex-Bradford Pals soldier (Second Battalion) recalls enlisting for a pound a week - play clip (1:33)
http://www.bradlibs.com/bradfordpals/web_audio/audio1.htm

[loobylooayr]

I don't find the ad disrespectful.
Yes, it's beautifully shot and poignant. Yes, it's not historically accurate. And if the Royal British Legion raise money from it that's brilliant. As for similarities to Paul McCartney's video from the 80s, well they would be similar - they both depict the same event.
I don't see it as a cynical marketing ploy by Sainsbury's - no Sainsbury's produce or prices are shown (apart from the fund raising chocolate). Watching it doesn't make me think I've got to rush to Sainsbury's. But maybe I'm naive 
However watching it with my 14 year old daughter it did spark a conversation about the First World War, the conditions in the trenches and how young the soldiers were.

There are many ads on TV which I think are very exploitative and money grabbing-ly cynical - all adverts for online gambling, loan companies,  "have you been in an accident that wasn't your fault" claim companies etc etc. 

Looby  

[IgorStrav]

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

The bottom line of advertising, whether TV or any other media, is to build a brand and encourage more customers to buy it.  In the UK we are fortunate to have very clever and entertaining advertisements amongst the overall portfolio, and the advertising industry has given some great fllm directors their initial opportunities.  I love to watch advertisements, and I think the John Lewis one this Christmas is masterly. 

But marketing spend is always focused on building the brand.  So whether Sainsbury's had the intention of getting people into their supermarkets more this season, to give to the British Legion and/or shop, or whether they wanted us to think better of them because they've supported this charity and made a good film which reminds us of an event which is well worth remembering for many many reasons, they wanted to build their Sainsbury's brand.

My point is not whether the resulting ad is better taste than many advertisements, or whether it represents a great charity and supports it, or any of these things.  I'm just uncomfortable with Sainsbury's building their brand - because this is what they are doing, subtly or not - alongside the current focus on WW1 on its hundredth anniversary.

But you are all very welcome to disagree    That's only my opinion.

[youngtug]

Sainsbury's  have certainly attained a high profile from this,without even mentioning themselves in it. The amount of debate, such has here as seen to that. Do I think that may have been an underlying intention, well, you could call me cynical but I'm sure that someone would have mapped a likely scenario of response to the ad. You cannot really fault the ad, but!