June went by so quickly and I was having so much fun watching a couple of fellas kissing that I completely missed the fact that June had gone by.
So this is why the June’s TV’s Worst Advert Award is so late.
Honest.
Anyway, it’s been a good one for the old adverts again with the highlight being the Heinz New York Deli Mayo scandal. Who would have thought that the sight of two men giving each other a peck on the lips would have bought the whole of the American Christian right to its knees. All nodding away in agreement that men performing sexual acts on each other is a terrible, terrible thing.
What a bunch of cunts.
Anyway, enough of this hilarity, on with the results:
It’s a bit of a different chart this month. And I’ve got to say Billy Murray totally does not deserve to be voted June’s TV’s Worst Advert…. oh no, hang on, he does.
Previously on TWA I’ve complained about the terrible dubbing on the Cillit Bang advert.
But the lip syncing on that is of the highest quality when compared to the advert for the bizarrely named Paula - a new chilled desert for kids made with whole milk and cool splodges, no less:
Yes, TWA has made it to 200 entries. Some have made us laugh, some have made us cry, some have made us consult our lawyers. All have made not one jot of difference to the quality of adverts on TV.
Not one jot!
Anyways, in what at first glance may seem like lazy, slap-on-the-back, self-satisfaction, but in reality is something that has taken me quite some time to do so is in no way lazy, here’s a list - in no particular order - of 5 of my favourtite entries from the past 200.
Enjoy!
Cerco IT Training
And advert encouraging peope to start a new career as an IT support desk professional. A career choice so bad that Tony Robinson is doing a special documentary about next week and an advert with even worse spelling.
Another one of those bloody environmentalist adverts pushing a product that will enable you to repent your filthy polluting ways and be at one with nature - or some cock like that.
Sebastian Faulkes had better watch out. Not a particularly bad advert in any way, shape or form but I like the entry. And this is my list. So it’s on it.
As tired and well rehearsed as the jokes all seem on TVs Worst Adverts, I think the dead horse that is UK TV advertising still has some flogging left in it. Wouldn’t you say?
So thanks for reading and for all your contributions over the past 200 posts and let’s look forward to 200 more shit adverts.
Over the years, TV’s Worst Adverts has been accused of many things: being a funking clown, having inappropriate relations with badgers, and most frequently of all, having no sense of humour. What. So. Ever.
This is mostly because TV’s Worst Adverts thinks that “irony” is something that looks a bit ferrous. And TV’s Worst Adverts thinks that wit is the lowest form of sarcasm.
But compare to the 200 (or so) mirthless Jim Davidsons who have complained about the Heinz New York Deli Mayonnaise advert, TV’s Worst Adverts is funnier than watching a monkey playing the drums after you’ve smoked your own body weight in woolers.
If you could imagine such a thing!
Yep, it seems that the sight of 2 men kissing, even though it’s a peck on the lips, even though it’s clearly part of a joke, even though it’s about as offensive as a tin of magnolia paint, is too much for the homophobic bigots trapped in the narrowness of their own Daily Mail addled minds.
So Heinz has pulled the advert after the back-woods, yokels complained that it was “inappropriate to see two men kissing”, you know, like they do when men celebrate scoring a goal in big, gay, men-on-men football.
Others - who were previously believed not to have yet evolved enough to use a phone - complained the advert was “unsuitable to be seen by children” and that “it raised the difficult problem of parents having to discuss the issue of same-sex relationships with younger viewers”.
However, what many haven’t thought about during this whole debate is the constant barrage of adverts showing men and women kissing which raises the difficult problem for same-sex parents having to discuss the issue of different-sex relationships with younger viewers.
Anyways, one of the reasons this advert has proven so shocking to viewers with lower IQs is that same-sex relationships on TV were previously limited to Luke being bummed over the bonnet of a car in Hollyoaks and that bird from Pushing Daisies tonguing another bird in a Liverpudlian cul-de-sac.
Other than that, same-sex relationships have never been shown on TV. Nor ever mentioned. Nor has anyone on TV ever even thought about it.
On top of this, British children have never before been exposed to such blatant displays of homosexuality on the TV screens, in front of which their lazy, distant parents plonk them, before in their short lives. Accusations that the majority of male children’s TV presenters were as “camp as Christmas” were dismissed as “outrageous, Sweetheart!” by an anonymous spokesman for that group whom I recently met on Clapham Common.
But it’s not just the ignorant, hate-filled pissdrips who have come out of this one badly. Heinz also seem to have more than egg on their faces since they cowardly pulled the “gays” off. They have faced claims of being spineless, of being no better than the homophobes who complained and that their advert was based around the inherent fact that “homosexuality is funny”.
Regardless of TV’s Worst Adverts own sexual preferences, we here at TWA like the advert. I think the joke is actually that the family haven’t noticed that their mum, who clearly was a woman at some point, is now a bloke from a New York deli.
If I were being really picky, just to say something negative, I get the feeling that the man is about as authentically from New York as my Yankees baseball cap is. That’s not to say that he was also made in a sweatshop in Vietnam just that he seems a bit too NYC to be real.
But more so, I really dislike this adverts regressive depiction of the modern British family, in that “Mum” is still the one who makes the sandwiches.
Come on Heinz, it’s not the 1950’s you know. “Dads” make sandwiches for their families too.
Alright, before I start it’s probably worth stating again that this blog isn’t “TV’s Worst ROI Adverts” or “TVs Least Memorable Adverts” - it’s TV’s Worst Adverts. A subjective look at TV adverts in the UK based 100% on whether I think they’re worth their weight in cathode ray tubes or not.
So even though after seeing the live Honda skydiving advert you might have run straight to the nearest Honda dealer, pulled down your trousers, thrown yourself across the bonnet of an Accord and offered yourself to the salesmen because, gosh, you just love skydiving that much, it doesn’t mean the advert shouldn’t appear here at TWA.
Now that’s out of the way…
An awful lot has been made over the fact that this advert was shown *live* on TV. No, you’re not hearing things, I did say *live*!
Can you think of anything better than an advert *live* on national TV - without any retakes or editing or anything?
I thought not.
You’re not alone either. Some folks on the internet got so excited about it being *live* that they got that warm, tingly feeling down the front of their pants and started dry humping their computers. Even in the build up to the advert being broadcast they were so turned on by the idea of *live* TV adverts that their comments were little more than a string of “Ds” and “Rs” as they repeatedly rubbed those keys with their limp lob-ons.
Honda themselves were little better.
They’re tying this ad in with their new slogan “Difficult is worth doing” but I can’t help but think that they got caught up on the “*live* TV is difficult” aspect a little too much.
Because even if showing something *live* on TV is difficult to do, it’s not any more difficult to watch - except for Loose Women, of course.
And I don’t care if there’re so many things that might go wrong, or that timing is of the essence or even that if one of your skydivers so much as farts at the wrong time millions will be left thinking “Who the monkey are ‘Hondr’?”.
Because as a viewer, I don’t see any added value to doing something *live* - except for Richard and Judy, of course. Because if it wasn’t live the show would just be called “Judy” as Richard’s ridiculous comments get him edited out of the show again.
And skydiving, it might be difficult to do as well but it look as easy as falling off a log - albeit one that’s flying at 21,000 feet. Plus, it’s just oh so boring to watch. Which is my big problems with this advert - it was just so boring.
That’s because skydiving is essentially the synchronised swimming in the air. And we all know how exciting synchronised swimming is.
If I had to pick (because you’ve threatened to make me watch the advert again if I don’t), I’d say the scene right before they jump out of the plane is the most exciting part of the advert. But that’s only like saying “taking the lid off the tin is the most exciting part of watching paint dry”.
Maybe if the skydivers had been naked AND on fire this advert might have been exciting. Maybe if the skydivers had jumped out as soon as the green light went on (rather than 10 seconds after) AND there were Germans on the ground shooting custard pies at them this advert might have been exciting.
But just having some bloke shout “There’s an ‘H’! And that’s an ‘O’!” then show the words “Hi Mum” written on his gloves definitely didn’t make this advert exciting.
So, Honda, difficult might well be worth doing but boring most certainly isn’t:
Follow Up Adverts
Here’s the follow up advert for the Accord:
This actually looks harder to do than the *live* advert which is probably why they didn’t do it *live*. Because difficult is worth doing but only if you can do it in 3 minutes 30 seconds and you don’t make a tit of yourself on live TV.
Anyway, my favourite part is when they spell out the name “Accord” with stacked parachutes. But I just get the feeling that they did that with CGI rather than with real people.
Maybe I’m wrong but again it seems that some things are too difficult to be worth actually doing…
We meet our hero Silky Shitbiscuit enjoying a chat in the pub with Bertie Cobblers:
“…and that, dear Bertie, is how the badger ended up in my bed. All perfectly innocent, so no need to ever mention that again. It’s my round isn’t it? Same again.”
“Yes, sir?”
“I’ll have a pint of lager and an orange juice, please.”
“Sir, hello do you mind stepping out of the car and doing a breath test?”
“What’s that? I’m not in my car. I’m stood right in front of you?”
“Look, you had 2 pints, you’re over the limit - that’s a 12 month ban and a criminal record.”
“No, no, no. The pint’s for Bertie Cobblers. I’m driving, so orange juice, please barkeep.”
“Hey, it’s company policy I’ve got to let you go.”
“Let me go? I don’t follow. Let’s just call it 2 orange juices?”
“I know there’s only 20,000 on the clock but that’s my final offer.”
“No, you’ve lost me again. Have you been drinking on the job? Because you might get fired for that.”
“Well, that’s just great man. No licence. No job. Now what?”
“Whoa, whoa, whao! No need to get upset - I said might get fired. Why don’t you get me those orange juices and you might feel better about yourself?”
“So what’s it going to be?”
“2 orange juices! I’ve told you a dozen times! You’re possibly the worst barman I’ve ever met.”
No, what I mean to say is that with the new Think! Don’t Drink and Drive campaign it seems that we’ve all become such a bunch of selfish, drug taking (in a socially acceptable way, of course) manslaughtering cunts that we can’t possibly understand why drink driving might be bad beyond the fact that:
If you drink drive you might get caught and some things which are in no way as bad a losing your life might happen to you.
At least, that’s the message I’m getting anyway.
It seems to me that this advert is the equivalent of warning you against rape by saying:
Be careful, you might catch crabs of your victim!
In the past the Think! Don’t Drink and Drive campaign has given us some pretty shocking and memorable ads - most of which end up with someone dying at the end. Sadly by the end of this advert I’m actually hoping it’s the rat-faced and exceedingly judgemental barman who’s killed.
In fact, I’d planned to kill him myself. Yeah, I’d ironically run him down in my car even though I’d not had a drop to drink before hand - after all, I don’t want to miss.
I changed my mind against committing this heinous crime though because I was worried the brain juice that slops from his skull as I crush it like a grape might damage my paint work.
Oh yeah, and something about murder being wrong or something…
Seriously though kids, don’t drink and drive - you might lose your job.
Yes, I’ve found a new way to waste my life - it’s called Plurk. No really, it is.
I think it’s fair to say that I’ve been a little bit remiss on the writing front recently so I’ve been looking for ways to keep in touch with all you TWA devotees between posts.
I think Plurk might be it (or it might be another internet fad, I’m not sure).
For those of you who don’t no what the Plurk I’m talking about, it’s like Twitter but goes sideways. It let’s you leave short messages (no longer than 140 characters) to speak your brains to the world. Things like “Mum, it’s all gone!” and “My nan records the snooker but not Ultimate Force“.
Important stuff, I think you’ll agree.
Anyway, I want to try it as an experiment to see if you Advert Haters use it, like it, think it’s a bit festering bag of Olay etc.
If you want to sign up, click this link and you’ll be added as one of my friends (ahh, sweet) and we can all get together and Plurk our hearts out.
What really gets me with Olay is that they keep banging on about “pentapeptides this” and “pentapeptides that” - as if it’s their greatest achievement.
Clearly with the unveiling of Eve Cameron “Beauty Journalist” as the new Nadine Baggott “Celebrity Beauty Editor” (don’t worry, you retain your Most Ridiculous Job Title crown, Nadine) they’ve managed something far more impressive in their labs.
Because unless I’m very much mistaken I recognise Eve’s “head tilted slightly to the left” presentation style, her tussled hair and her seeming inability to smile. Aren’t you Nadine Baggott, Eve?
Have Olay perfected human cloning or are they knocking out gynoids like the do in Stepford.
Either way it’s frightening.
But enough of that, I’ve got more important fish to fry. What really impressed me about this advert is that report she gets out of her filing cabinet. You know the one I mean, the exciting one revealed at the World Congress of Dermatology?
Well, Eve is very excited about it anyway.
It reveals that “pentapeptides are as effective as retinol in reducing lines and wrinkles”.
This is very good news for Olay because they’ve just bought a shit load of pentapeptides from a bloke they met in a pub in Chepstow. Apparently he gets them from a Russian farmer who harvests them from beneath a badgers foreskin.
Obviously not, I’ve just made up all those “facts” about pentapeptides. Easily done, though.
As Eve was so excited about the report I thought I’d have a quick look at the World Congress of Dermatology’s Web site, just to see what the vibe was over there with the skin doctors and all.
What first struck me on the home page were the very prominent names of the event’s sponsors at the top: L’Oreal, Johnson & Johnson and, oh, who’s that, P&G Beauty.
Can you guess why that’s interesting? Can you guess what P&G Beauty manufacture?
That’s right - Olay.
Come on, you’ve heard of Olay, right? It’s the one with all the pentapeptides in it. Yeah, I knew you knew.
But hang on. If you think for one minute that I’m suggesting that the World Congress of Dermatology (sponsored by P&G Beauty) announcing that pentapeptides are “bloody brilliant” (I’m paraphrasing there) just as Olay are touting them as “the hottest anti-ageing ingredients around” is anything other than pure coincidence, then you’re very wrong.
Very wrong, my friend. Pure coincidence.
Because in reality it’s very much a chicken and egg scenario. After all, can you say with any certainty which came first: the scientists discovering the effectiveness of pentapeptides in the battle against ageing or P&G Beauty bank rolling the scientists week long jolly in Buenos Aires?
After banning smoking in public places last year the Government is on the anti-smoking warpath again. This time they’re determined to stop children taking up the filthy habit and, in the process, to ruin the NHS for us all.
Their plan of attack includes an excellent TV advert (you know, the one featuring the “I’m the King of the Swingers” sound track but sadly no smoking monkeys) and proposing the removal of all branding from cigarette boxes.
Some have criticized the idea of unbranded cigarette packets as madness and another infringement on our personal freedoms. A spokesman from the smokers’ lobby group “Coughing Up Blood” wheezed:
“My granddad said the only thing that got him through the Normandy landings was chain smoking the cigarettes he stole form bodies of his comrades strewn across the beaches of France and again later from the mortuary.
This proposal goes against everything he fought for.”
But, even considering the convincing arguments against the proposals, I’m with the Government on this one.
After all which do children like more comic books - with all those pictures and words and stuff - or sheets of plain paper?
Answer me that, will you?
And what do kids buy more of, Miley Cyrus albums - with those dirty pictures of her back - or blank CD-Rs - that contain absolutely no nude back pictures at all?
Yep, categorical proof that kids like stuff with pictures, words and recordings of cats having their claws pulled out on it.
Anyways, forget all that, I have a better plan to put kids off the idea of smoking - make all cigarettes look like the Nicorette Inhalator.
Because if by making smoking a cigarette look like you’re sucking a lit tampon doesn’t reduce the numbers of smokers then nothing will.
And I say while we’re at it go the whole hog, design them so you can only stick one in your gob by using an unwieldy plastic applicator, ooh, and put the little bit of string on the end too.
I think it’s fair to say that most people would rather walk round with massive blobs of blue ink in the corner of their mouths then suck on a tampon - even if it was in a designated tampon sucking area.
The only down side I can see to my plan is that there could be an increase in the number of vaginal burns amongst absent minded female smokers but I think it’s a risk worth taking.
Right. First off an apology:
15 Votes
Loading ...
Yes, I’ve found a new way to waste my life - 
