COM101 Blog Entry #3 - Banned Condom Commercial

Banned Condom Commercial - "Mama said I could"

I suppose the title is good enough to attract your attention, however, i'd have to disappoint you because the video and my critical analysis is free of filth.

I wanted to do an analysis on a banned commercial and sift through the strategies the company used and, ultimately, figure out the reasons why the commercial was banned. In case you're wondering, no, I did not purposely go around youtube looking specifically for a condom commercial but i chanced across this and it's SO cute, but of course, disturbing to certain extents at the same time. And anyway, the title's good publicity on my part.

Alright, let's go right down to the analysis. Now that you've seen the commercial, you may all have different takes and perspectives on it. Some of you may love the cute boy, and some of you may wonder the link between the boy's actions and condoms.. well, I'm about to give you my perspective, and you are all welcome to COMMENT!

Strategy #1 - Innocence (The use of children)

They used the small boy, who, amidst a very obvious mischievous look, seemed to always act innocently especially whilst screaming out "My Mom said I could!" Of course, the use of the small boy was meant to make the audience relate well to it because adults are generally attracted to kids. Thus this advertising company chose to use children as a means of grabbing the audience's attention
In addition, even though the boy is doing things he isn't supposed to do at that age, the audience would not associate him with "the streets", just for the simple fact that he's a boy.

Strategy #2 - Humour

As the boy does extremely outrageous things (some are only outrageous because they are illegal for him at that age), some audience may find it funny especially since he does all those acts but ends up saying "My Mom said I could!" and pushing the "blame" all to his Mom.
Furthermore, the kind of deviant activities that he does are all so outrageous to the extent that to the audience, it seems almost impossible for such things to happen in real life and thus it ends up being a humorous thing.

Strategy #3 - Progressive

The child progressively does more and more outrageous and dangerous (at that age) acts eg. eating a lot of icecream, touching a snake, getting a tattoo, vandalism, driving a car, then finally flying an airplane. From here we see the gradual build of interest that the advertising company is trying to instill in the audience.

Strategy #4 - Non-verbal Communication

The child has a subtly deviant and mischievous look on his face and this is part of the company's strategy of Non-verbal Communication. I think that the look the boy projects plays a major role in the success of the commercial because if he had been a boy who looked TOO innocent, then there would be more "Awwww...." moments and the audience wouldn't really notice that there's a real problem at hand. Of course, the audience needs to realise that there's a problem because it will help them to link that to the main idea of why the child is doing all those things (as shown at the end of the commercial)
Another apparent use of non-verbal communication would be the child's stance and the way he portrays himself whilst doing all those deviant acts. He seems to be tough and rough when doing all those things however, the anticlimax comes when he uses his Mom as an excuse. Most audience may not realise how much of an anticlimax it is, especially since it is alright for children to refer to their parents for everything.

Let's now analyze why this commercial was banned. If I were a critic, I would point out every single small detail about why this advertisement shouldn't go on air. And that's exactly what I'm about to do.

1) The juxtaposition of children and mischeviousness
Aside from the usual "Mummy, what are condoms?" questions, this commercial is practically dangerous if children watch it because they might think that it is alright for them to do such things (as done by that small boy). In addition, the poor boy in the acommercial had to go through so much counselling to make sure that he is aware that all those things he did are not real and just for a commercial. Either way, children and mischievousness just should not be portrayed on national television, especially since children are getting more puckish these days, anyway.

2) The submission of adults to the child
The adults in the commercial seem to immediately submit to the child when he says his "tagline". This can be seen in the scenes of the snake and the tattoo. This reversal of roles might annoy parents as they may not be too happy with the fact that children are rising above adults in decision-making. In addition this might have negative effects on children as, if they watch this, they might think that they have a certain extent of power over adults and take advantage of them

3) Animal Rights
As silly as this may sound, I love animals, and PUTTING A CAT IN THE WASHING MACHINE is totally not my thing. SORRY.

Well I hope you liked my analysis. DO leave your comments =))