Sorry if my point was too specific but I think it's a worthwhile one to press:
The ad wasn't banned because it itself was political, had exactly the same creative been made by Iceland it wouldn't have been banned. It was banned because it was a re-purposed piece of content originally created by and used in partnership with a group deemed to be a politically-focused organisation.
(and actually, it's worth pointing out that Clearcast can't "ban" ads by themselves, that's the ASA in most cases - they just really advise as to whether they abide by the rules)
Given Greenpeace's status as an activist organisation, I can't bring myself to believe Iceland didn't expect this decision. Whether or not it was intentional, it's certainly achieved its purpose as an advert...
Exactly - and I feel it's an important distinction to make in this context and the wider environment of manufactured outrage.
Clearcast say the same: "The concerns of Clearcast and the broadcasters do not extend to the content or message of the ad, i.e. Clearcast does not consider the ad itself to be political."
The advert itself carries an important, but easy to gloss over, message.
They're exceptionally fortunate to now have a "Plan B" media maelstrom to help them cut through...
I'm unsure why "manufactured outrage" is an issue here?
That's exactly what this is. It's obviously being use for a positive purpose here to advertise the use of palm oil, but they could very easily clarify the lack of clearance and address it, instead using that lack of clearance to their own ends.
Again, I'm not judging their morality in using this tactic to drive awareness of palm oil - but this is pretty much the dictionary definition of manufactured outrage, pushing the notion their story is being silenced, whilst knowingly ignoring the issue is actually about a very specific technicality.
'it was deemed to be "an advertisement inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature".'
'for Iceland to overcome the ruling, "Greenpeace needs to demonstrate it is not a political advertiser."'
--source: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-...
Sorry if my point was too specific but I think it's a worthwhile one to press:
The ad wasn't banned because it itself was political, had exactly the same creative been made by Iceland it wouldn't have been banned. It was banned because it was a re-purposed piece of content originally created by and used in partnership with a group deemed to be a politically-focused organisation.
(and actually, it's worth pointing out that Clearcast can't "ban" ads by themselves, that's the ASA in most cases - they just really advise as to whether they abide by the rules)
Given Greenpeace's status as an activist organisation, I can't bring myself to believe Iceland didn't expect this decision. Whether or not it was intentional, it's certainly achieved its purpose as an advert...