Forum menu
I don't know if its been on before but I think Ive just seen the premier of it whilst watching corrie. Great advert.
Same here, quite a moving piece
Mrs was watching telly and I was on here, don't know what made me look up but certainly had a bit of grit in my eye by the end of it.
Great ad.
This one, I guess.
sainsburys have resurected Netto.
It's all a bit.
The German should have given away his Aldi chocolate.
Wrong music, needed Altogether Now by the Farm Shirley ?
Paul Mcartney did the same film many years ago.
Pipes of Peace.
3 years after Jona Lewie.
I had no idea that WW1 soldiers living in the trenches were so clean shaven. They might have been susceptible to trench foot due to the dirty insanitary conditions but they obviously had no problem accessing shaving facilities. And judging by the glowing clear completion a bit of shaving balm to slap on afterwards.
Soldiers didn't actually spend that long at the front line, there were regularly rotated out to the rear and replaced with new men so its likely that they might only spend as little as five days a month at the very front. They had as strict routine to adhere to so weapons cleaning and personal hygiene would be as important as they are today.
It's important to shave every day. Aside from morale, etc, you need a 'clean' face so that gas masks could form a good seal.
Bet the Germans won that game of Footy on pens
They had as strict routine to adhere to so weapons cleaning and personal hygiene would be as important as they are today.
Poor discipline though, apparently. Until 1916 every soldier in the British army had a statutory obligation to have a mustache. King’s Regulations :
[i]The hair of the head will be kept short. The chin and the under lip will be shaved, but not the upper lip[/i]
IIRC the football truce was on Christmas 1914, so many individuals in the Sainbury's ad appear to have scant regards for the King's Regs. All the more surprising as a WW1 soldier could be executed for suffering from shell shock, so you would expect discipline to be well enforced.
Of course the Sainsbury ad with its healthy looking soldiers and their blow dried hair might not have set out to paint a true picture of life in the trenches, it is after all a supermarket, so a romanticized version might have been deemed more 'family friendly'.
Also, footballers in 1914 didn't do goal celebrations. Maybe a firm handshake and a purposeful walk back to the halfway line.
Clearly fake.
Very good but why did the chocolate and photo look old? ..... they would have been 'new'.
Nice* appropriation of the rememberance sentiment.
*cynical
Nice piece, still feels like it has the dead hand of commercialisation on it. Why not 'give' the ad to the Royal British Legion for fundraising purposes and put a little 'in partnership with Sainsburys' at the end?
I had no idea that WW1 soldiers living in the trenches were so clean shaven.
They had to shave everyday.
It's important to shave every day. Aside from morale, etc, you need a 'clean' face so that gas masks could form a good seal.
There was no gas or gas masks in 1914.
They had to shave everyday.
I'm sure they did. I'm just surprised they were able to do it to the standard shown in the ad. I'm also surprised by the healthy looking well-conditioned hair.
http://beyondthetrenches.co.uk/shaving-in-the-trenches-washing-and-grooming-in-the-great-war/
I think it's great btw that Sainsbury's, despite very challenging economic times for them, should be prepared to devote large amounts of money for very expensive ads at peak times to honour those who scarified so much. But I'm not sure if painting a false picture of what they endured might be useful.
Lifer - MemberNice* appropriation of the rememberance sentiment.
*cynical
Yup.
It's pretty off, really.
Mind you, plenty of companies profited from the war at the time.
They're donating the profits from the sale of the chocolate bar to the Legion.
But they don't like to talk about charidee......
If you can accept that a company in such dire straits as Sainsbury would willingly sacrifice a campaign during its most important sales months as an act of remembrance and charity, then it's a laudable effort.
If, on the other hand, you believe someone in a meeting somewhere has talked about remembrance as a 'powerful brand' which could be harnessed to out-sentiment the rest of the big supermarkets and drive sales, it's not quite so shiny.
Celebrating 100 years of war profiteering
I'd rather have an ad like this than the usual tripe that Asda/Tesco etc trot out which consists of telling you how everything is 3 for 2 or whatever.
I'd rather have an ad like this than the usual tripe that Asda/Tesco etc trot out which consists of telling you how everything is 3 for 2 or whatever.
That's presumably what their key demographic focus group told them.
I'd rather have an ad like this than the usual tripe that Asda/Tesco etc trot out which consists of telling you how everything is 3 for 2 or whatever.
I have never seen a Asda/Tesco Christmas ad which consists of telling you how everything is 3 for 2 or whatever. Is that because I don't watch enough telly or because they don't exist ?
This is Tesco's Christmas 2014 ad, no mention of 3 for 2.
I'll take fatuous celebrities and special offers on beans over the glamourisation and nicifying of war (and I really don't like fatuous celebrities!). WW1 was a tragic loss of life and marked the end of 99 years of peace in Europe, using the event to sell chocolate seems very wrong to me.I'd rather have an ad like this than the usual tripe that Asda/Tesco etc trot out which consists of telling you how everything is 3 for 2 or whatever.
If, on the other hand, you believe someone in a meeting somewhere has talked about remembrance as a 'powerful brand' which could be harnessed to out-sentiment the rest of the big supermarkets and drive sales, it's not quite so shiny.
This ^^^ and what nickjb says. It's all about influencing our shopping habits.
using the event to raise money for the Royal Bristish Legion doesn't seem very wrong to me.
That better?
I have no objection to that element of it. But that's just an offset, a 'loss-leader' to use their own terminology. The aim is to drive footfall through their stores at the time when most consumers spend the most money in supermarkets, not to raise money for RBL.
It's much better than using it to sell chocolate but that is not their main motivation. I must admit the timing of the current outpourings seems a little odd to me. As I mentioned the outbreak of WW1 was the end of 99 years of peace and started a chain events that lead to WW2 and then to much turmoil in Eastern Europe resulting in the loss of many, many lives. We've now had 100 years of near continuous fighting. My first thought was that the centenary of the end of the war would be a better time to remember the dead but in reality that was just a hiatus. Maybe that could be 'will we ever learn?' dayThat better?
99 years of peace..... you sure about that...?
Not an absolute peace but the closest we have come in a very long time. Quite a few uprising and minor wars with casualties in the 10,000s rather than 1,000,000s.99 years of peace..... you sure about that...?
No British fighting for 99 years. AIUI the last British soldier killed was at Waterloo 99 years a few miles from the first action of WW1
The aim is to drive footfall through their stores at the time when most consumers spend the most money in supermarkets, not to raise money for RBL.
My God really?! How shocking.
A company spending money on adverts to promote itself? Next you'll be telling me about Bears defecating in woods...
99 years of peace..... you sure about that...?
99 years since the British had last fought in Europe at least.
Not an absolute peace but the closest we have come in a very long time. Quite a few uprising and minor wars with casualties in the 10,000s rather than 1,000,000s.
That's a strange spin to put on it, the UK was involved in loads of wars betweeb Waterloo and the start of WW1.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain[/url]
Also, your casualty figures don't account for the changes in technology that led to the huge loss of life in WW1.
That's a strange spin to put on it, the UK was involved in loads of wars betweeb Waterloo and the start of WW1.
Indeed, we were too busy elsewhere to be at war in Europe too! But like the "wars" we are engaged in today, far enough away not to bother us too much.
Do you mean the Ionian Islands fighting the Greek war of independence? Can't see any other British fighting in European wars in that list but I haven't studied it closely.the UK was involved in loads of wars betweeb Waterloo and the start of WW1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain
16,000,000 dead in WW1 wasn't it? Even accounting for mechanisation that's a hell of a lot more. Most of the conflicts in that period had fewer that 100,000 taking part never mind killed.Also, your casualty figures don't account for the changes in technology that led to the huge loss of life in WW1.
My God really?! How shocking.A company spending money on adverts to promote itself? Next you'll be telling me about Bears defecating in woods...
I know, pretty obvious isn't it? But apparently people are mistaking this for some poignant gesture to mark the anniversary of WW1. 'Dusty' etc.
As per my first post, I'd be a lot more impressed with it if it was purely a RBL advert, funded by Sainsbury without the big logo splashed over the end of it.
Can't see any other British fighting in European wars in that list but I haven't studied it closely.
Didn't realise wars didn't count unless they were in Europe?
16,000,000 dead in WW1 wasn't it? Even accounting for mechanisation that's a hell of a lot more. Most of the conflicts in that period had fewer that 100,000 taking part never mind killed.
Not sure what point you are making here?
WW1 was the result of massive military build up, arms races and colonial expansion. The World had never had armies or navies of that size or the type of weapons that had been developed.
There is also a strong argument that WW1 and WW2 were the same war and some argue that it didn't end until the collapse of the USSR.
Of course they do but this is what I posted: [i]WW1 was a tragic loss of life and marked the end of 99 years of peace in Europe[/i]Didn't realise wars didn't count unless they were in Europe?
Not sure what point you are making here?
More or less this:
[i] WW1 was the result of massive military build up, arms races and colonial expansion. The World had never had armies or navies of that size or the type of weapons that had been developed.
There is also a strong argument that WW1 and WW2 were the same war and some argue that it didn't end until the collapse of the USSR.[/i]
The start of WW1 marked the end of a long period of peace in Europe and the start of a long period of global war with many casualties the ramifications of which are still being felt today. The 100 year anniversary of this significant event is not an ideal thing to use to promote the sales of chocolate.
nice add made me google the "oh what a lovely war" original which had a more "authentic" feel . I read the critical piece about it "too beautiful " using the war to "flog groceries" I see the point but still found it moving .
Of course they do but this is what I posted: WW1 was a tragic loss of life and marked the end of 99 years of peace in Europe
1832-1876 (intermittently) - Carlist Wars
1848-1866 (intermittently) - Italian War of Independence
1870 - Franco-Prussian War
edit: and probably a whole load more, those are the ones I know of off the top of my head.
I see the point but still found it moving
..just as long as that movement is in the general direction of sainsbury's....
[img] 
[/img]
Tesco could go with [i]"Every little advance helps"[/i].
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will commercialise them.
The ad is tasteless, if nothing else.
You also forgot the Crimean War (1853-56, 350-375000 dead), Austro-Prussian War (1866, ~108000 dead or wounded) & the Balkan Wars (1912-1913, ~490000 dead or wounded).
Europe has never had 99 years of peace.
[url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe ]I'll just leave this here.[/url]
Whilst i agree that the commercialisation thing is a little tasteless, i think we need to be careful; it would be very easy to build a counter agrument about Blackadder, 'Allo 'Allo, Dad's Army or any other TV show / film related to war (clearly excepting those created purely for scholarity reasons). After all, TV shows and films are created to make money.
After all, TV shows and films are created to make money.
Absolutely.
Where do you draw the line? It's a tricky one.
The World at War documentary is a fantastic TV series but it has made a lot of money.
You could argue that Black Adder is a lot worst as it is widely inaccurate (despite being used to teach kids in schools but that's another thread) and that they also laughed about WW1.
I find it pretty tasteless, and it seems recently we get remembrance shoved down our throats 365 days a year atm..
While I agree that it's a very important part of history that should indeed be remembered with due reverence, I find this whole cult of remembrance doesn't really seem to offer very much that's particularly constructive to society..
I feel that at least some of the energy that goes into this mournful and macabre spectacle could surely be channelled into something more beneficial
it would be very easy to build a counter agrument about Blackadder, 'Allo 'Allo, Dad's Army or any other TV show / film related to war
It wouldn't easy at all to build a counter argument about Blackadder and 'Allo 'Allo. You could try of course, but most people would reject it as nonsense.
If you can't understand the difference between poking harmless fun and exploiting the nation's centenary commemorations for commercial purposes then most people with commonsense can.
Of course, adverts can be done that deal with the commemoration of wartime events in a classy and respectful manner
I find it pretty tasteless, and it seems recently we get remembrance shoved down our throats 365 days a year atm..While I agree that it's a very important part of history that should indeed be remembered with due reverence, I find this whole cult of remembrance doesn't really seem to offer very much that's particularly constructive to society..
Bang on the money there mate!
It doesn't seem to stop us making the same mistakes again. The most vocal supporters of remembrance seem to also be supporters of the war in Iraq and Afganistan
The most vocal supporters of remembrance seem to also be supporters of the war in Iraq and Afganistan
remembrance has turned into something very ugly and something that i no longer really want to be involved in. i always bought a poppy as a small token to help those that fought against (german/italian) fascism. now i wouldn't wear one as it feels like i might as well be 'liking' britain first on facebook.
what disturbs me all the more as the 100 years commemoration continues is the nonsense that we should be thankful for the sacrifices made in ww1. where did that come from ? it's like history has been re-written and ww1 and ww2 are the same thing ( though i agree that there are many connections). don't get me wrong, it was an enormous tragedy but why should gratitude and not sorrow be the overriding emotion ? were we under threat from invasion ? no. was germany any greater an evil than imperial britain ? no. did our soldiers come from a more democratic or welfare enabled society than those in germany ? no.
our soldiers went to war in ww1 to preserve the status quo for the capitalist industrialists in uk, france and russia. an enormous number volunteered to do so because they wanted to fight, for adventure, to escape the reality of their poverty. luckily for capitalism most of the people of europe directed their energy fighting each other, not the things that were really harming them.
to me, the soldiers of ww1 aren't heroes, they're tragic victims. if we start thinking of them in that way, we might actually start to think of war as a bad thing rather than something proud, noble and heroic.
Feel pretty despondent after watching that ad.
By all probability every soldier there was dead within the year, fighting a "war to end war" - when, of course, in reality, politicians everywhere learnt nothing from it, nor from the countless subsequent wars.
That's f****** Christmassy. It's even worse to appropriate one of the few tiny slices of humanity from that awful period and beat it with the retail stick, and I will remember this, Sainsburys.
What they should have done was not branded it at all. Just leave it as a poignant reminder that those who make life-changing decisions for us are often not best placed to do so. And that applies as much today as it did a century ago.
Saw the ad last night, it's a crass, ugly and cynical piece of marketing. Regardless of the rights, wrongs or accuracy of the events portrayed, they're attempting to benefit from the deaths of thousands of men and boys a century ago, and that's pretty shameful stuff.
By all probability every soldier there was dead within the year
The British mortality rate for the whole of the Great War was a little over 10 percent. For context, the mortality rate for the RAF Bomber Command over World War 2 was more like 45 percent.
I reckon they should do a New Years ad that shows terrified soldiers fixing bayonets and being machine gunned to death or buried alive by artillery fire in the trenches.
They can intersperse this with cuts to the war industrialist's New Years Eve party where they are dining on Sainsbury's finest meats and Champagnes.
The British mortality rate for the whole of the Great War was a little over 10 percent. For context, the mortality rate for the RAF Bomber Command over World War 2 was more like 45 percent.
Duffer - I know what point you're trying to make but you are not comparing like with like.
The mortality rate for Bomber Command was nowhere near 45%, the air crew mortality rate was 45%.
The mortality rate in WW1 for Front Line Infantry was a lot higher than 10%.
Another stat, the attrition rate in the Battle of Normandy in 1944 was higher than the Battle of the Somme.
A bunch of ad men sat round a table and thought "how can we piss all over the memory of men who gave their lives for us.......oh I know, we can use them to sell our overpriced crap"
****s
I'd agree with what a lot of trailmonkey says. I don't have a problem with remembrance as such, and I do have respect for the people that lived through the wars.
I think there's a lot of revisionism going on though and it's often pretty much implied that somehow we wouldn't be here now if people hadn't gone to the trenches. That sort of thing makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it's substituting a clear-eyed appraisal of what happened for a cult of remembrance (as somebody said above) and I think we need more of the former and less of the latter.
men who gave their lives for us......
Again I think this sort of thing implies that the young men who went off to war did so after making a conscious decision to selflessly risk or lose their lives so that people a few generations on could have a better life.
While there were maybe exceptions I suspect a lot of people actually joined the army for much the same reasons people do now, and I don't think that's so they can give their lives for their country. On top of that people probably had no idea what was coming with the advent of mechanized warfare.
Hopefully it's obvious though that that's not to knock or disrespect the people who went or what they endured, or the people left at home and what [i]they[/i] endured. I hope I never have to experience anything like it myself.
Agree with trailmonkey
The mortality rate in WW1 for Front Line Infantry was a lot higher than 10%
but that still doesn't really help to give an accurate picture of the risks faced at the front and the likelyhood that everyone would be dead within a year. the greatest lethality in ww1 occurred in the years 1914 and 1918 - both years where lots of time was spent outside of the trenches. that's quite an astounding stat given the huge set piece battles thyat took place in the years in between. trench warfare was comparatively safe - that's why both sides dug trenches.
I find this advert truly disgusting but I'm not at all surprised. As someone said the rememberance brand is "hot" right now and of course there's an advertising "creative" low enough to steal other peoples work wholesale and use it to sell turkeys in the most disrespectful way imaginable.
I'm thinking of a five letter word starting with C.
but that still doesn't really help to give an accurate picture of the risks faced at the front and the likelyhood that everyone would be dead within a year
trench warfare was comparatively safe - that's why both sides dug trenches.
Not sure what your saying here? The advert is set in Christmas 1914, in the trenches.
The trenches were started to be dug in 1914 as the Schlieffen Plan failed and the war of maneuver ground to a halt.
Since when has advertising been about a fair reflection of anything?
If highlights the futility of war - that's (almost) enough for me.
Not sure what your saying here? The advert is set in Christmas 1914, in the trenches.
in response to:
By all probability every soldier there was dead within the year
i'm saying in all likelyhood, most were still alive 12 months after xmas 1914 as they were in a trench.
teamhurtmore - MemberSince when has advertising been about a fair reflection of anything?
If highlights the futility of war - that's (almost) enough for me.
Well first of all it is perfectly reasonable to expect that advertising should be fair in every respect THM, that's why there are laws and industry standards to deal with any possible transgressions.
And secondly the topic being discussed is the Sainsbury's TV Christmas ad - have you seen it ? If you have then you will be aware that it doesn't "highlight the futility of war".
In fact if your only knowledge of WW1 was based on the Sainsbury advert you could be forgiven for thinking that war, specially at Christmas time, was a bit of a laugh.....a bit of a kick about, chocolate, singing Christmas carols, lots of smiling and shaking hands with your enemy.
Because, according to the slogan of the Sainsbury's Christmas ad, "Christmas is for sharing".
There was an excellent history on ww1 on BBC4 last night. Part of it's conclusions was that our view of ww1 is based upon the outpouring of literature created at the battle of the somme by the men who fought in it. as a result in the national psyche the conditions of the somme have become indicative of the whole campaign.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04pw01r/war-of-words-soldierpoets-of-the-somme ]War of words: soldier poets of the somme[/url]
ernie_lynch - Member
Well first of all it is perfectly reasonable to expect that advertising should be fair in every respect THM
Agreed.
that's why there are laws and industry standards to deal with any possible transgressions.
Hmmm, I don't share you confidence there Ernie.
Funnily enough I have seen it yes (and you say that others are patronising!) and have my own interpretation thanks. Yes, it does remind me of the futility of war. I doubt anyone uses an ad as the basis of their understanding of history though. That really would be patronising.
that's why there are laws and industry standards to deal with any possible transgressions.Hmmm, I don't share you confidence there Ernie.
Yes I am perfectly confident that there are laws and industry standards to deal with any possible transgressions, it's a fact, even if you don't share my confidence.
Funnily enough I have seen it yes (and you say that others are patronising!)
I have never claimed that "others" are patronizing, the only person I have ever accused of being patronizing is you. And I am certainly not alone in accusing you of being patronizing it's an accusation leveled at you by several people over a considerable period of time.
And explain why you think this comment is patronizing
[i] the topic being discussed is the Sainsbury's TV Christmas ad - have you seen it ? If you have then you will be aware that it doesn't "highlight the futility of war"[/i]
There are laws to stop bankers transgressing too....advertising lives and dies by distortion, laws and regulation hardly prevent that.
Yes right - "have you seen it" - was meant in what way exactly? No need to answer, the tactic is as cliched as it is understood. Appears most days in fact.
Christmas Ads even have Santa and churches and we know how much of this is to be believed!
Anyway off to sports direct now. Apparently there are laws and standards that make some confident that their staff are well protected.
advertising lives and dies by distortion, laws and regulation hardly prevent that.
So now you're saying that laws governing advertising have no discernible effect, fair enough, you are entitled to that opinion even if you are unlikely to find many who might agree with you.
And let's remember what you suggested was that advertising is never "a fair reflection of anything"
Yes right - "have you seen it" - was meant in what way exactly?
In the only way it could have been meant, ie, "have you seen it".
Well good luck believing what you see in adverts.