Society/Culture Why aren't same sex couples represented more in Australian commercials?

[Hoops]

There was recent ad on Australian TV with a

Also from the ABS.

This is already an anachronistic debate. As more same sex couples feel comfortable about self identifying, they will feature more in advertising.

The homophobes will have to get used to it, or **** off.

Of course this doesn't mean advertising won't be any less exploitative or supportive of the s**t aspects of capitalism. So this is the most minor of progressive advancements.




"The 2016 Census counted just under 46,800 same-sex couples living together in Australia. This represents a 39% increase since the 2011 Census, which counted 33,700 same-sex couples. Data on same-sex couples first became available in 1996. In the 20 years to 2016, the reported number of same-sex couples has more than quadrupled.

The increase in the reported number of same-sex couples may in part reflect greater willingness by people to identify themselves as being in a same-sex relationship and an improvement over the last 20 years in the rights of same-sex couples.2 Younger people accounted for almost all of the increase in the number of same-sex couples between the 2011 and 2016 Censuses. Half (51%) of the increase was for the cohort aged 20-29 years in 2016, with an additional 35% of the increase in the cohort aged 30-39 years in 2016."

It contagious.

 

[RupieDupie]

These are the ads responsible for some people hating on the soup ad...

 

[Frank Bunn]

According to the 2016 Census, 0.9% of Australian's in a relationship identified as being in a same-sex relationship, roughly 48,000 couples*. For comparison, there are approx. 357,000 people in Australia who are blind or have low vision. Same-sex couples are a tiny portion of the population.

I don't know if the OP was serious or trying to stir the pot, but it's fairly obvious why there aren't that many same-sex couples in ads and it only takes 5 minutes of googling to get an answer.

* My original post had 0.9% total population, not those in a relationship.

Of course the ads don't feature blind couples with children. There's no current virtue signalling minority points to be gained from blind people.

Same as you won't see white hetero couples spoonfeeding Star Wars pasta to their Aborigine kid who has been rescued/adopted from a dysfunctional shithole town in WA.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You just burp up alt right hack words whenever you don't like something.

This is the market bringing in groups that have been ignored. Get used to it, or leave.

 

[dumb]

there's no real issue, surely.
marketing your product in this manner isn't about changing the world, it's about making sure the world knows you've jumped on the bandwagon. the afl is a perfect example of this. for all the talk of their involvement with causes, it's never anything that isn't safe or easily digestible for the public. they refuse to be drawn into the israel/palestine conflict, for example.
we've passed some imaginary critical mass where it is now safe, if not advantageous for campbell's soup to use a gay couple in an ad.
i don't care that the soup ad portrays a gay couple, but i can't process it in any other way than cynically.

i don't think this will have much effect on the old stupid-male trope in advertising. it's not something that keeps me awake at night, it's a fairly observable trend. they aren't going to slaughter any sacred cows to make an idiot out of someone for their product, so don't be too concerned about heterosexual couples disappearing just yet.

my favorite bit of diversity in advertising is probably the target catalogues including down syndrome kids. there are few things more beautiful and genuine than the smile of a down syndrome person, they are absolutely incapable of hiding any joy and their happiness is so infectious.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

my favorite bit of diversity in advertising is probably the target catalogues including down syndrome kids. there are few things more beautiful and genuine than the smile of a down syndrome person, they are absolutely incapable of hiding any joy and their happiness is so infectious.

100% agree.

Including previously marginalised people is called virtue signalling now, which is a very embittered way of looking at life.

 

[The Passenger]

Need a primer on this.

I pressed the button on the traffic lights for an old lady today so she didn't have to walk an extra 5 metres...

Did I do a virtue signal?

 

[Showbags]

Call the ad s**t all you want, but it's got people talking about it/their product so it seems pretty effective to me.

Yep the triggered snowflakes ranting about "too much gay" have jumped right into the trap of Campbell's marketing team. Not the brightest lot are these far right chaps. Expect plenty more of it if this is the reaction they get.

 

[Gough]

What do you expect? This is the beginning of the much vaunted end of days scenario that began with gay marriage, hi Lyle. Today soup, tomorrow the world.

 

[The Passenger]

Gay people....

Are having sex right now....

The horror....

 

[Gough]

All I can say is thoughts and prayers for these poor straight men who are having their's and far more importantly THIER CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!!!! ruined by this insidious gay agenda. Seriously you guys must sleep with the light on.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Im going to buy a shitload of cambell's canned soup in solidarity.

Actually, no I won't. It's salted horse.

 

[Bad Horse]

Im going to buy a shitload of cambell's canned soup in solidarity.

Actually, no I won't. It's salted horse.

well now Im triggered thanks very much.

 

[Chief]

What do you expect? This is the beginning of the much vaunted end of days scenario that began with gay marriage, hi Lyle. Today soup, tomorrow the world.

Did you know kids in school are being told they can't have a wank without including same-sex couples in their mental imagery? It's politically correct deep-state progressive agenda gay lobby NWO vetted mind control gone mad!

 

[Malifice]

Did you know kids in school are being told they can't have a wank without including same-sex couples in their mental imagery? It's politically correct deep-state progressive agenda gay lobby NWO vetted mind control gone mad!

Probably orchestrated by the Jew... ummm I mean Goldman Sachs and International Bankers.

 

[Gough]

Ever since that Andy Warhol got involved with them Campbell's have always been bad news.

 

[Scotland]

What was the SSM survey result in the end? 62% yes, 38% no - thanks Wikipedia.

That's why same sex couples don't feature prominently in Australian commercials, it's a commercial decision. Advertising appeals to the lowest common denominator.

If you don't feature a same sex couple in a commercial, then you don't upset the 62% or the 38%. At worst you might upset that 1% who are outraged by anything that doesn't include every race, gender, religion etc. under the sun.

If you do feature a same sex couple in a commercial, you potentially appeal more to the 62% but risk upsetting the 38%.

(Side note, $40m of the $120m budget for the survey wasn't used. Where did it go?)

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If you do feature a same sex couple in a commercial, you potentially appeal more to the 62% but risk upsetting the 38%.

Wasn't the line that most of that 38% wasn't opposed to homosexual relationships, but they just didnt want laws changed?

 

[Scotland]

Wasn't the line that most of that 38% wasn't opposed to homosexual relationships, but they just didnt want laws changed?

If you voted no to SSM then chances are you don't want to see same sex couples on TV during your Gogglebox commercial breaks.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If you voted no to SSM then chances are you don't want to see same sex couples on TV during your Gogglebox commercial breaks.

So the no vote was an opposition to homosexuality.

At least you're honest.

 

[Scotland]

So the no vote was an opposition to homosexuality.

At least you're honest.

Why wouldn't I be?

Not everyone who voted no is 'opposed' to homosexuality, but everyone who is 'opposed' to homosexuality voted no. Converse logic and all that. Also not everyone who voted yes 'supports' homosexuality.

My baby boomer 'I don't like change' father voted yes so it staggered me that 38% of the population did not.

 

[owen87]

Need a primer on this.

I pressed the button on the traffic lights for an old lady today so she didn't have to walk an extra 5 metres...

Did I do a virtue signal?

You weren't until you posted about it online, then you did.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Why wouldn't I be?

Not everyone who voted no is 'opposed' to homosexuality, but everyone who is 'opposed' to homosexuality voted no. Converse logic and all that. Also not everyone who voted yes 'supports' homosexuality.

My baby boomer 'I don't like change' father voted yes so it staggered me that 38% of the population did not.

All good.

Not even the usual bigoted fundies have tried to mount a boycott. They know they battle is over, and society has moved past them.

 

[Proud SJW]

Wasn't the line that most of that 38% wasn't opposed to homosexual relationships, but they just didnt want laws changed?

Whose line is it, anyway?

 

[Showbags]

What was the SSM survey result in the end? 62% yes, 38% no - thanks Wikipedia.

That's why same sex couples don't feature prominently in Australian commercials, it's a commercial decision. Advertising appeals to the lowest common denominator.

If you don't feature a same sex couple in a commercial, then you don't upset the 62% or the 38%. At worst you might upset that 1% who are outraged by anything that doesn't include every race, gender, religion etc. under the sun.

If you do feature a same sex couple in a commercial, you potentially appeal more to the 62% but risk upsetting the 38%.

(Side note, $40m of the $120m budget for the survey wasn't used. Where did it go?)

Not sure I buy that reasoning. Yes some Helen Lovejoy types wouldn't buy the product/service simply because they are bigots but the exposure that such ads receive would make more of the 62% (and some of the less bigoted members of the 38%) more likely to purchase the product/service as a consequence.