« Credibility | Main | The Medical Community Stands Up »
Boycott Bell
Disgusting...especially the word "antivirus" across the breast area.
Postively. Rude. Ingorant. Churlish. Kooky. Stupidity.
Let's make it simple: boycott Bell. Tell Bell, "the female body" is not de facto pornographic, even if that's how they seem to think about women. Block pornography, not women.
Update:
Bell Canada
Executive Office of Customer Relations for Bell
1-866-317-3382
executive.office [at] bell.ca
The message at the above number says to press "1" if you haven't yet talked to Customer Service. I tried talking to Customer Service earlier today, and their responses consisted primarily of "um," "I don't know," and "ad? what ad?" Accordingly, I'd recommend you press "2" for management and then "5" for other concerns (i.e., marketing abominations).
05:29 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83420840853ef00d8346e093069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Boycott Bell:
Comments
From one of the comments on a similar post by AccordionGuy:
I think complaining about this would be over-reacting. It's one of a series in an ad campaign for Bell Sympatico's services, all of which show over-protective parents in a mildy derisive light -- doing things like following their kid's bike in their minivan, using an air-horn to beep out semi-naughty words on the TV, and so on.
In short, irrespective of what one might believe about the merits of content filtering in general, this ad is humourous and ironical in tone, a joke. My explaining it further would ill behoove us all.
Posted by: Nobody Important | Mar 4, 2005 9:10:49 AM
Excuse me ..Dr. Zenon One
OB ONE KENOBI
The ad is NOT humourous
and does not appear to ME to be a joke
but if you think it is funny...go ahead laugh
explaining it further does not
"ill behoove us at all"
(Do we still say ill behoove BTW??)
I would like to know what guys at Bell thought that this ad was joke.
I hope they stand up and explain their kind of humour to the rest of us.
What would happen if a photo of a wrinkly middle-aged guy, wearing boxer shorts,
black ankle socks and dress shoes,
tire tube stomach hanging out,
knobbly white knees,
bony shoulders,
caved in chest cavity,
hairy nostrils and ears
appeared in a BELL AD.
YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT HERE
DONTCHA??
Do you think the Bell Men would find THAT FUNNY??
It's always easier for men to put up demeaining photos of women and then say
"YEAH IT WAS JUST A JOKE, LIGHTEN UP!"
I am looking forward to the NEW BELL AD
showing this kind of guy so that we can all have a big laugh
HA HA HA
In fact, I am going to call my good buddy over at BELL and get right down to it ASAP!
GOSH we could use a REAL LAUGH TODAY
Posted by: Jasper | Mar 4, 2005 1:08:11 PM
At least one reader missed the fact that I didn't write the above text, so I point it out again. I merely quoted a comment from AccordionGuy's blog.
Honest people can disagree over whether it was funny, and even over whether a boycott is called for, but it seems clear (from the context of the campaign) that the ad intends to poke fun at overprotective parents by showing evidence that they confuse nonpornographic, medical images with pornographic ones.
An honest reader who has not been exposed to the other ads could reasonably conclude that its message has something to do with women's bodies necessarily being porno. But I respectfully suggest that the advertisers should not be convicted of this before mens rea can be shown.
Posted by: Nobody Important | Mar 4, 2005 2:14:25 PM
HEY yeah.
put things in quotations
OB1
*wink*
QUOTE
"Honest people can disagree over whether it was funny, and even over whether a boycott is called for, but it seems clear (from the context of the campaign) that the ad intends to poke fun at overprotective parents by showing evidence that they confuse nonpornographic, medical images with pornographic ones."
UNQUOTE
It does not seem CLEAR to me that the ad intends to poke fun at confused parents.
I'm a parent, I think I know the difference between medical images and pornographic images....
and what is fun and what is a joke
and what is just plain STUPID, insulting advertising.
I don't require direction from Bell to help straighten out my "confusion".
Perhaps the Bell Men should get out of the parental education department and stick to what they know best
Telephones......
DING DONG ... BELL
*wink*
but then...what do I know...
I am NOBODY IMPORTANT EITHER
Posted by: Jasper | Mar 4, 2005 2:41:19 PM
Nobody Important:
Do you work for Bell ;)
There's nothing amusing about the ad. If the marketing execs thought this was amusing, for example as a critique of overprotective blocking, they were tragically mistaken.
Posted by: tz | Mar 4, 2005 3:49:17 PM
Feminists have no sense of humor. Especially the card-carrying Conservative feminists, of which tz is surely the only example. Lighten up; the context matters!
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 4, 2005 4:26:28 PM
DING DONG BELL
ADVERTISING IN THE WELL
I will think that in a contextual manner
everytime I see a BELL AD from now on...
*THANKS to BEll, I have been really englightened today, now I know what the difference is between porn and medical images, I am UNCONFUSED!*
THANK YOU BELL FOR THIS IMPORTANT PUBLIC SERVICE
NOW isn't THAT having a sense of humour!!!
I think it is!!
Posted by: Jasper | Mar 4, 2005 4:58:48 PM
Dear Anonymous:
Ah, here we have someone who is stooping to use an F word.
I suppose you believe that women who are not feminists think this ad is okay. First of all, given my continual focus on the importance of men in the lives of children and families, I would offend many feminists. If, however, your definition of "feminist" is someone who believes that women, nay women and men, should be treated with respect, then absolutely, label away. I'm a feminist. I hope you are too.
By the way, why would you have to hide behind anonymity to attack someone for being on the side of basic human rights? There's a concept, hey?
Posted by: tz | Mar 4, 2005 6:20:21 PM
Basic human rights? Kinda like the right for same-sex couples to marry, right Mrs. Card-carrying Conservative?
I withhold my identity because I don't want people like Jasper to fill my inbox with ravings, but your point is of course just a typically Conservative ad hominem attack.
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 4, 2005 8:48:24 PM
Anonymous:
First of all, that would be Dr. to you. Second of all, I don't have a Conservative card. You should always check your facts before making such a reeking sibilation as that. You clearly haven't read my posts on why I don't have a Conservative card at this time.
By the way, you also quite obviously have not read any of my posts regarding the right of same-sex couples to marry. I refer you to my "Canadian politics" and "religion" categories, Mr/s. needs-to-read-more-and-hurl-less, where you can read about why I believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry.
By the way, I thought Jasper made a few very good points.
Not sure what you mean by "ad hominem attack" from me, by the way, Mr/s. Anonymous. How can you personally attack an unknown identity? By the way, you and the other two "anonymous" and "nobody important" folks are NOT writing from Sympatico-based IP addresses owned by Bell Canada, are you by any CHANCE?
Lest we get too far off topic, here, boycott Bell.
Posted by: tz | Mar 4, 2005 10:09:30 PM
Whooee! I'm right along side you on this one, TheresaGal. Them BellCanadee idjits is barkin' up the wrong tree when they put out such a stoopid ad. I ain't figgered out how I can boycott'm on accounta there ain't no cable where I am an I gotta have the ExpressVu. Speakin' o' which, most any late night there's plenty o' real porn on that Bell satellite TV (not that I ever watch, mind you) so I don't know what they's talkin' 'bout with all this protectin' the world from the bare naked ladies.
Yores trooly,
JimBobby
Posted by: JimBobby | Mar 4, 2005 11:21:26 PM
HOWDY Jim Bobby
I think you should go work for
"THEM BELL "Sympathetic NOT" MARKETING BOYS
wantin to unconfuse all us parents"
Maybe they would listen up to you
AND DARLIN ANONYMOUS
I never email people I don't know and rave at them
BUT
I WILL SEND YOU SOME WESTERN
KISSES AND HUGS PARDNERS
Posted by: Jasper | Mar 4, 2005 11:55:44 PM
LOL!!!
By the way, about the "context" for the ad, the print ad is pretty straightforward, in that it shows the ad up close. The tv spot is a little different...there, the "the female body" page is shown only briefly, but the "context" is that the ad mades the mother look like a complete, idiotic, ditz who can't tell a medical textbook from pornography. So, there's your "humorous" Bell Canada context. Not funny.
You can watch the ad here (click on the second video link).
Posted by: tz | Mar 5, 2005 12:19:43 AM
1-800-CALL TELUS
ASAP
Posted by: Jasper | Mar 5, 2005 1:13:49 AM
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I have to say, though, that calling Bell misogynist based on this one stupid ad reminds me of the worst excesses of Women's Studies departments in the late 80's to early 90's. (e.g. all sex is rape, men beat their wives more on superbowl sunday, etc.)
Posted by: Nobody Important | Mar 5, 2005 9:33:22 AM
I wouldn't know...I've never taken a women's studies class; however, I am a woman. You're the one using the M word, by the way. I said they're being degrading and offensive.
It's very sad that you don't seem to take women's concerns seriously. Although you claim that you're "nobody important," every person's attitude -- every man and woman -- is important on this issue.
Thank you, by the way, for calling it a stupid ad. I think we can agree on that.
Posted by: tz | Mar 5, 2005 11:39:58 AM
Nobody Important
Telus has job openings
in their
marketing department
right now
JFYI
*wink*
Posted by: Jasper | Mar 5, 2005 5:24:10 PM
I already hate Bell, nothing but problems when I used to have Sympatico.
I actually had a bill go to a collection agency for $0.00, stupid took months to fix that Bell "mistake"
That one was the last straw so I cancelled everything, voip for phone, persona for internet and Rogers for Cell.
I haven't had a problem since then, nice :)
Posted by: Andre | Oct 29, 2005 6:27:19 PM
A bill for 0. That reminds me of the time I went to pay off my undergraduate student loan. I went into the-bank-currently-known-as-BMO the day before my loan payments were to start and asked them what the balance of the loan was so that I could pay it off completely. They told me the amount; I paid it.
Months later, I received a collections notice (without having been sent any other requests for payment, I'll point out) for about $30.00 because, when the bank told me the total loan amount to pay, they apparently didn't include the "first payment" on the loan, which wasn't due yet.
Duh.
Posted by: HofC | Oct 30, 2005 2:09:29 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
