The Laptop Shop badvertising
By
UPDATE Tuesday 8th July
The designer of the ad for the Laptop Shop (Fergus O’Neill) has been in contact by email and in the comments. I am happy to post the clarification by Fergus here and to correct my statement in the original post that implied the Laptop Shop were at fault.
The version of the ad that was used in the Sunday Business Post was sent by me and was not approved by the laptop shop.I apologise to the laptop shop for the error. The correct ad was used in the Ingear section of The Sunday Times.
The images used are manipulated stock and can be viewed here along with a description of the copy – http://www.flickr.com/photos/28355011@N03/
The images used do not represent any person living or dead and if they do I regret any distress caused
Again my apologies to the laptop shop for any embarrassment caused.
Fergus O’Neill
UPDATE Monday 7th July @ 4.15pm : Robert from the Laptop Shop has left a comment on this post. An unfortunate set of circumstances resulted in the ad going to print and Robert apologises for the offence caused. Read down through the comments below for the full detail. Thanks for clarifying the situation Robert.
——————–
Original Post on Sunday 6th July
This ad was in the Computers in Business section of the Business Post today.
I don’t know which is worse. The gobshites at the Laptop Shop who thought that facial disfigurement is a good way to advertise their product, or the Sunday Business Post for allowing the ad to run.
Or maybe it’s just me?
Looks like you might be a new visitor to le craic. If you like what you see here and fancy some daily diversions delivered to your favourite feed reader, why not click to join Club le craic. Go raibh maith agat! Thanks a thousand!
33 Comments
July 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
That is AWFUL! What the hell is wrong with people?
July 6th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an ad that made me want to send something to the ASAI before, but this one does.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Where is the morality?
July 6th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
omg this is the worst ad i’ve ever seen. Is that REALLY supposed to be funny?!
July 6th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Exactly Remy
Well Katha I just don’t know what’s gone through their heads in making it, I really dont.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:44 am
The people who created the ad should be ashamed, but as you say the newspaper also has a huge responsibility. Part of the production team’s responsibility is to check everything that goes into the paper, so there’s no excuse for this getting through.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Amazing what some people will find acceptable. Though I often wonder if it’s worse to be complaining online about them because it untimately results in more traffic to their site!
It’s very sad that they did this.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:38 am
[...] master stroke or inappropriate advertising? Le Craic has it. Digg this [...]
July 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
No, it isn’t you. I usually like the odd and bizarre but this one goes over the top of bad taste. Especially when you are trying to be a business SELLING to business.
I have been in that shop a few times, and there is nothing hip about it. So trying to have an add that would appeal to a hipster fails miserably.
I don’t think I will be shopping there any more. I would rather spend my money with PCWorld then to reward the laptop shop with my money.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I saw that too! staggeringly insensitive stuff from the Laptop Shop. I suspect the ASAI will be hearing a lot about this…
July 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
hahahahahaha it’s f*cking terrible!
July 7th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
exactly. disgusting. eircom broadband? not just disgusting, but unbelievable.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I own The Laptop Shop so I am ultimately responsible for the ad content. This ad was presented to me by my advertising agency and I didn’t pass it on the basis that I thought it would cause offense. They changed the picture to the same girl with just a sad face which is what I intended… an ad that made a play of the fact that everyones so down about the economy and climate at the moment. The ad that was supposed to run appeared in the Sunday Times on the same day (home section pg22). Unfortunately, due to the fact that The Business Post rang with a last minute deal with literally an hour to production we were under pressure. The person I deal with in the advertising agency wasn’t there and asked someone else to forward on the ad. Unfortunately it was the previous draft that I hadn’t approved and I didn’t actually discover this till I saw the ads in print. I understand most people will think this is a lame excuse but thats what happened. We are a small business and sometimes don’t have the systems or time available to vet things properly. I can only apologise that this mistake caused offense but the fact that a different ad… the correct one was run on the same day in a different paper will hopefully convince people that the advert and the offense was unintentional. The Sunday Times ad is the one which should have gone out. We have obviously learned a lot from the negative reaction.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Well Robert, fair play to you for saying that and apologising but
“We are a small business and sometimes don’t have the systems or time to vet things properly”
is so unfortunate for you. There are plenty of people out there who will help and advise you on things like this – all you have to do is ask.
I hope you refuse to pay your advertising company (who seem to be at fault) and see your way to making a donation to a relevant charity.
As I said though, at least you apologised. That’s a good start.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
What Darragh says and….”…We are a small business and sometimes don’t have the systems or time available to vet things properly.” You don’t need a system, just the ability to ask: “which of the two ads are you talking about now?”
July 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
There was no second ad as far as I was concerned 73man. I just told them to send the current ad.
Thanks for your comments Darragh, but like I said I didn’t need someone elses opinion to know that the published ad was in bad taste.. it was obvious to me when first discussed which is why it was never supposed to reach the public domain. Everyone concerned regrets that it was published in error.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Im glad people look at the adverts in newspapers, im sure it makes advertisers feel like their money is well spent,thats what we pay for.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I hope you refuse to pay your advertising company (who seem to be at fault) and see your way to making a donation to a relevant charity.
Which Charity? Prevention of Cruelty to People with Odd Faces?
July 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Well that one, or something like http://www.operationsmile.ie/
Whichever one would help more
July 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Or people could just stop being so precious.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The version of the ad that was used in the Sunday Business Post was sent by me and was not approved by the laptop shop.
I apologise to the laptop shop for the error. The correct ad was used in the Ingear section of The Sunday Times.
The images used are manipulated stock and can be viewed here along with a description of the copy – http://www.flickr.com/photos/28355011@N03/
The images used do not represent any person living or dead and if they do I regret any distress caused
Again my apologies to the laptop shop for any embarrassment caused.
Fergus O’Neill
July 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I think it’s just having a bit of empathy. I don’t think people are being precious about it, just giving a heartfelt, human reaction that’s all.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
But it was obviously a manipulated picture, not some poor mutant being exploited.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
When I saw it I immediately thought of
http://www.friendsofalandoherty.com/
again though, every has their own take on the ad – mine just differs from yours.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I suppose there are those that will always find things offensive.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Can’t speak for everyone, but I’d replace the “always” with “sometimes” to describe myself.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Well then you’re not one of ‘those’. Their more reasonable cousin, perhaps.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
[...] is the questionable advert for an Irish laptop retailer highlighted by Le Craic. Read the comments as it includes a defence [...]
July 8th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
my earlier comment was deleted for some reason.
so I’ll repeat the jist without any cursing in case that what the reason my post was deleted
Basically, the client in this case, the laptop shop should not have gone to the agency with a last minute request for an ad. That causes major pressure on the studio in the agency to respond and no doubt it was late on a friday AFTER the copy deadline passed.
And clearly the ad that was printed was obviously considered at an earlier stage so it could have been approved just as easily.
Anyway, these things are not important in the scheme of life.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Comment was in the moderation queue still – hadn’t seen it earlier
July 9th, 2008 at 9:26 am
People have mentioned going to ASAI on this. This will be pointless. Any complaints made on ads, if upheld, will just be published in some long list with all the other complaints by people with nothing better to do with their lives.
These guys made a mistake. People make mistake every day so give them a break. Personally, I think Fergus feels bad enough so why go on about it to make it worse for him. He’s just another guy tryig to do his job like all of us. If I got this kind of attention everytime I made a mistake I’d never have a moments peace. It seems very clear that this was not planned by them and they obviously regret it.
Fergus and Robert have apologised and explained what happened. . . . now how about we let it go and get on with it.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Thanks Moss, of course you are correct and I’ve posted the updates above so as far as I’m concerned it’s a closed matter. For that reason I’m closing comments on this post now.
AJ
September 17th, 2008 at 11:25 am
[...] The Advertising Standards Authority came out with their judgement on the ad after receiving many complaints (note: I didn’t make any representation to the ASAI as I felt the issue was reasonably explained in the end – as you can see in the comments on the original post). [...]