The hot topic that sparked heated debates on social networks this weekend in Croatia was the ad ran by Saponia, which insulted part of the public because it shows a woman washing fan kits for her partner, who is having fun with his friends cheering for Croatia.
“Behind every Croatian fan is a woman,” was the message at the end of the video, in which the woman is helping her partner put on a freshly laundered shirt.
Discussions which burst with arguments pro and con the ad got so heated that Saponia reacted on Sunday by pulling the ad from their official Facebook page and publishing an apology.
“We apologize to all who were in any way offended with our new campaign ‘For Sparkling Clean Croatia’. The aim of the campaign was to encourage unity, both in cheering and in shopping Croatian products. The intention was never to downgrade women, who represent the bulk of our customers. Once again we wish to congratulate the Blazers, and we hope that our products will wash their kits, regardless who washes them,” Saponia said in a statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwDZk7bYN9c
We asked Kamilo Antolović, a certified court expert for advertising, to analyze and comment on the video and tell us whether the backlash of the public was justified and whether Saponia did right by pulling the ad?
Expert comment from Kamilo Antolović
“The campaign in question, For Sparkling Clean Croatia from Saponia, (which is reportedly now withdrawn from broadcasting, with an apology from Saponia) can be observed from several standpoints, three of which can be emphasized:
- Does the content of the message violate some norm of law (regulations) or code (ethics) in the Republic of Croatia,
- How does such communication (message) affect the perception and business of Saponia, and
- How can we assess the withdrawal of the message (pulling from air) and apology from Saponia?
It is undoubtedly a freedom and right of any company to shape and communicate messages in line with its resources and objectives, where attention must be paid to the provisions of the law (the message must not be contrary to the provisions of the related laws in the Republic of Croatia) and self-regulatory standards (the codes of advertising industry).
The law wasn’t violated…
Looking at the message and its content, and valuing provisions of the Electronic Media Act (which regulates advertising on television), there is no grounds to claim violation of the provisions of the Act (ie Art. 30: “Showing women in a degrading manner”). The message contains no content or fact that would lead to conclude that the woman is shown in a degrading manner.
… but the code was
Looking at the standards of the profession as a best practice, particularly the ethical standards established by the codes of the profession (HURA, HUK …), and valuing the meaning of social responsibility of advertising and its role in the community (for example, art. 1 of the Code “messages should be prepared with a sense of professional and social responsibility”), the message contains facts that point to stereotypes (the traditional role of women), which is not in accordance with best practices, ethical standards nor the provisions of the Code.
Perception and business
Every company with its communication and marketing undoubtedly wants to enhance business (stimulate demand). Saponia of course had the best of intentions, but in the creation of the message it lost sight of the ethical dimension of the content of such message, or the perspective of part of the recipients of such a message, whose reaction (negative) created certain damage (negative reaction from part of the message recipients indicate that there was a certain communicational damage, ie. poor communication effect of such a message). In evaluating such communication results, Saponia withdrew the message, which was to be expected after the negative reaction of part of the auditorium.
Pulling the message
Withdrawal of the message and Saponia’s apology were the result of the perceived weaknesses of communication (including damage) of that message, and it is company’s autonomous right; indeed, by issuing the apology, Saponia in some way acknowledged the “moral offense” towards consumers, which is an expression of care and responsibility that Saponia has for consumers and the community. Although showing traditionalist motifs and content in the message (the video) can bring benefits with specific groups of consumers, there is always a risk that part of the dissatisfied ones spread “bad word” far further than the desired communication effect.
Of course, generally speaking, every communication and every message are aimed at improving business, spreading the reputation, stimulating demand, building image and the like. It is also apparent that each message and communication, which creates a negative reaction towards products or companies, harms the company. Simply put; it’s better not to communicate, rather than to communicate in a way that makes people (consumers) think or feel something bad!”
