British Ciders to Enjoy Whilst Boycotting Kopparberg

In a bizarre business move, Swedish cider company Kopparberg has suspended all their GB News advertising after a left-wing Twitter user complained they’d hosted Nigel Farage as a guest. Guido has no doubt Kopparberg will also be suspending ads for BBC, ITV and Sky, who have all interviewed Nige’ on numerous occasions… 

If boycotts are Kopparberg’s thing, Guido can only oblige and encourage its readers to abandon the Swedish brand. Guido will instead happily recommend several British cider companies that won’t leave customers with such a bad taste in their mouth… 

  • Thirsty Farmer cider, based in Nottinghamshire and made by the same family since 1880. It’s a small British company, though still stocking Morrisons and the Co-op…
  • Dunkertons black fox organic cider, is a delicious cider from the Cotswolds. The perfect drink to enjoy throughout this glorious British summer
  • Jack Rite sparkling cider will go down a treat with friends on the July 19th
  • Henderson’s Toffee Apple cider is the brew for readers with a sweet tooth
  • Brexit Bellevie is a beautiful, refreshing drink that champions the cause close to co-conspirators’ hearts. Readers could crack open a bottle in celebration of today’s trade deal with Australia

Nivea has also apparently announced a boycott, though Guido’s altogether less familiar with brands of moisturiser. Imperial Leather moisturiser seems an appropriate alternative brand…

Guido has contacted Kopparberg for comment.

mdi-timer 15 June 2021 @ 13:47 15 Jun 2021 @ 13:47 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Poster Banned As “Political”, the Wrong Kind of Political

The business backed campaign to unlock the economy, Recovery, is not a crazy bunch of covid deniers or anti-vaxxers. Their stated aim is to speed up the opening of the economy now the vaccination campaign has covered the vulnerable and starting to cover low-risk adults. A reasonable position, the sequencing is a matter of debate and as the PM told us dependent, on the data. The poster has been banned.

JC Decaux, the world’s largest poster company, have refused to run it saying “due to the political undertones within the messaging of the artwork we are unable to run this campaign.” JC Decaux has run countless political campaigns over the years, so that’s nonsense. The Government itself has spent £184 million on advertising over the past year, a fair proportion with JC Decaux.

Similarly, a poster site at Salford owned by Trafford Council, banned the poster from being used. Trafford Council said

“… unfortunately we won’t be able to carry the client on the TraffordCity roadside digital. As explained these roadside sites sit on Trafford Council land who have to approve artwork… Having looked at the website, unfortunately this would NOT be allowed as it is political and breaches our advertising policy.”

The campaign offered to change the poster design to no avail.

One-sided bans on political advertising are a dangerous form of censorship, like a lot of what is going on currently it is a slippery slope. Recovery is making a fair-minded political argument about the timing of the wind-down of this lockdown. We don’t suspend democratic argument in pandemic…

mdi-timer 23 March 2021 @ 15:20 23 Mar 2021 @ 15:20 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Government’s Ad Ban to Cut 2.8 Calories a Day Per Child

The government released new details today of a study on their impending bonkers ad ban, which, despite all previous evidence that such illiberal clampdowns don’t work, they hoped would justify the move. The government’s own research suggests an ad ban will reduce children’s calories consumption by just 2.8 calories per day. 

2.8 calories per day per child would – assuming no exercise – add 1 pound per three and a half years – and all for the destruction of thousands of small and medium businesses, and depressing the advertising industry. Not only is a 2.8 calorie reduction pathetic, the ASI’s Matthew Lesh points out even this is likely to be an exaggeration:

“The review that the Government’s calculations are based on – Viner et. al (2019) – does not contain any studies that simulate a realistic environment in which children are exposed to ‘junk food’ advertisements. In all of the 11 studies included, children were allowed to consume an unlimited quantity of food at no cost and none featured parental supervision.”

The government’s figures also calculate the advertising market – for what Whitehall refers to as “high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS)” – is £438 million (59% of the total online food and drink advertising market) with a hit to online platforms of £271 million per year.

With around 11 million children from 5–18, the UK government is set to sacrifice £813 million of online advertising revenue in return for one pound lost per child. Turns out this weight loss malarkey isn’t as easy as just taking candy from a baby…

mdi-timer 8 December 2020 @ 16:06 8 Dec 2020 @ 16:06 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Mad Ad Ban Plan Could Slam Ma’am

The Government this week published its consultation on banning online advertising for so-called ‘junk food’. Guido has reported before how there is no legal definition of ‘junk food’, and regulations would end up banning yoghurts, pesto, and raisins. Now the madness is spreading to a much more pervasive sphere than TV or the tube – online. The original plans were to ban the promotion tasty food online before the 9pm watershed, but now this has morphed into a total and complete shutdown. Banning ads for everyone from Wedding Cake businesses to local bakeries…

Disregarding the wider question of is it in the public interest to further undermine the media which is already struggling with reduced advertising revenues, the IEA’s Chris Snowdon details many ridiculosities of the new proposal in a must read blog. One striking example would be the banning of adverts for coronation chicken in time for the Queen’s newly announced four day Platinum Jubilee Holiday (Thursday June 2 to Friday June 5, 2022). Brits would be forbidden from including coronation chicken or commemorative shortbread in ads to celebrate the occasion. That’s just un-British.

mdi-timer 12 November 2020 @ 15:10 12 Nov 2020 @ 15:10 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Hugo, You Can Stop Campaigning

Hugo Swire’s wife caused quite a stir with her cracking diary detailing the behind-the-scenes joys of the Cameron chumocracy.  A bemused co-conspirator, Tony Colvin, got in touch to query these advertisements running on Guido. For Hugo…

They invite you to find out what Hugo Swire MP is doing for East Devon. Not very much Guido suspects, given he stood down as an MP in 2019. Which meant he fortunately didn’t have to face irritated and embarrassed Tory colleagues. The local Tory MP is now Simon Jupp.

These are Google adverts bought programmatically. Presumably a year after the campaign ended somebody is still automatically paying for them on their card – hopefully not the taxpayer. As much as Guido appreciates the revenue, perhaps somebody, somewhere, ought to cancel the order?

mdi-timer 16 October 2020 @ 09:57 16 Oct 2020 @ 09:57 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Some Thoughts on Reforming Online Political Advertising

New government measures proposed yesterday will mean political parties and campaigners must explicitly show who they are when promoting campaign content online, and according to surveys this has overwhelming public support. The proposals call for digital imprints to apply to all types of campaign content regardless of the country it is being promoted from, across all digital platforms. The regime is also intended to apply at all times, not just during elections.

The editor will declare an interest here, he has since 2007 had a financial interest in a digital advertising agency that has worked for all the major parties at one time or another; unions, charities, single-issue campaigns and blue-chip corporates who want to influence politicos. He’s been involved in the digital side of referendum campaigns, two mayoral campaigns for a chap who went on to greater things and election campaigns around the world. Having bought and sold countless billions of political adverts for over a decade, here are some observations about the government’s proposals to make political advertising more transparent:

  • More transparency about who is paying for advertising is a good thing.
  • The Electoral Commission rightly says: “We are not in a position to monitor the truthfulness of campaign claims, online or otherwise. However, changing the law so that digital material has to have an imprint will help voters to assess the credibility of campaign messages. Voters will know who the source is and be more able to decide how credible it is.” This is wise, the voters are the ones charged in a democracy to decide truthfulness.
  • The £100,000 third-party spending limit in England is anti-democratic. If the Unite union or the Taxpayers’ Alliance want to reach the 38 million voters across the nation, it can’t be done for a tiny fraction of a penny per voter. This just incentivises rule-bending, with the creation of dubious, albeit legal, front sub-campaigns, which counter-productively actually reduces transparency. The limit should be at least £1 million.
  • The full imprint on tiny adverts should be accessible by a standard little clickable symbol, not a wording in a small print.

Political advertising increases voter turnout, spreads new ideas and adds to democratic engagement. It is an important contributor to the democratic process and is to be preferred to behind the scenes lobbying done without any public knowledge. The thing about advertising is that it is done in public and is inherently an open form of political communication.

However, just as little could be done to stop Moscow gold reaching the Morning Star for decades, realistically nothing in the proposals will prevent foreign powers slush funding front groups with laundered money. Should we worry too much? You can’t really “buy an election” with adverts, because people exercise their own judgment, advertising doesn’t control people, it highlights issues and ideas, it calls voters to action. Advertising will not polish a t**d, it just covers it in glitter…

mdi-timer 13 August 2020 @ 15:26 13 Aug 2020 @ 15:26 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Previous Page Next Page