Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

2006/12: Is Tourism Australia's 'So where the bloody hell are you?' advertising campaign appropriate?

Related issue outlines:
No related issue outlines

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items specifically on this subsject: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2006 file) and enter the following word.

tourism
bloody



Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Online newspaper items: see the end of this outline (after the list of newspaper sources) for a google search facility with which to attempt to access newspaper items still online or cached by third parties.



What they said ...

'I just hope it doesn't damage the Australian image. I think that in an Australian context, people usually can say those things to somebody they know well. I don't think they would use it to a stranger and, in this instance, we're talking to strangers of a different culture, who I think may be offended'
Mr Alan Cadman, Liberal backbencher

'The ad is just a fun and friendly thing and shouldn't be a problem. It's what Australia is about'
Laura Bingle, the model who features in the advertising campaign and who utters the phrase which has caused the controversy

The issue at a glance
On March 8, 2006, a British broadcasting authority, the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre, banned the dissemination of the latest advertisements promoting Australian tourism, which feature the slogan 'Where the bloody hell are you?'
The ban has increased the disquiet about the $180 million promotional campaign which has been evident for some time. A number of critics within the advertising industry have comndemned it for popularising a crude and outmoded view of Australia. It has also been suggested that the phrase 'bloody hell' will either be incomprehensible or offensive in many of those countries where the campaign is to be run. This view has been expressed by the premier of Queensland, Mr Peter Beattie, by the leader of the federal Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, and by a number of Coalition backbenchers.
Tourism Australia, the government agency which commissioned the campaign, and the Tourism Minister, Fran Bailey, have staunchly defended the ad and Fran Bailey has recently visited Britain in an attempt to have the ban removed. To this point she has succeeded only in having the British regulatory authority agree to reconsider the ban.

Background
The [British] Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) is a specialist body responsible for the pre-transmission examination and clearance of television advertisements. All advertisements being transmitted as part of a national television campaign on United Kingdom terrestrial and satellite channels have to be submitted to the BACC for approval. The BACC is funded by commercial broadcasters who pay a quarterly copy clearance fee.
6.2.7 of the BACC's Notes of Guidance, last updated in November 2005, states, 'The use of bad language offends large numbers of people particularly where it is unexpected. Bad language will not be acceptable in advertising ... "Bleeping" out (or similar devices) of expletives is not regarded as likely to ameliorate the offence.'
The BACC has published a statement on its Internet site that many viewers would regard 'bloody' as an offensive word and that Tourism Australia 'might have been expected' to know the ad would not be approved. The statement notes that Britain's Television Advertising Standards Code 'prohibits material which is likely to be found offensive' and that 'bloody' was ranked as the 27th most offensive word in a research report which the BACC uses to guide its decisions. The report states, 'Ninety-two per cent of respondents agreed with the current policy that says there should be no swearing or offensive language used in television advertisements at all.'

Australia's Minister for Tourism, Ms Fran Bailey, has argued that that BACC's position is hypocritical or inconsistent as it has previously approved two commercials in which the word 'bloody' was used. One was a Foster's commercial featuring Paul Hogan and the other was a Toyota advertisement in which the word is spoken by a talking fish. To this point, BACC has not released the findings of its review of its earlier decision, banning the television release commercial while it contains the offending word.

Origin of and attitudes to the word 'bloody'
The use of 'bloody' as an intensifier used to be considered highly offensive in England, as the contyroversy over its use in George Bernard Shaw's 'Pygmalion' indicates. It would appear to be seen as less offensive now, as indicated by its use in mainstream British television programs such as 'EastEnders'.

The origin of the word 'bloody' is far from clear. The following are among the possibilities that have been suggested.
1. From an alleged Irish word 'bloidhe' meaning "rather". This was proposed by Charles Mackay in the 19th century, but is now regarded as unlikely as it would have been pronounced quite differently.
2. 'By our Lady" as an invocation of the Virgin Mary. There was an interjection 'byrlady', first recorded in 1570 and frequently used by Shakespeare, which meant 'by our Lady', but this was an interjection, not an adjective. It is also argued that the transition from 'byrlady' to 'bloody' is phonetically implausible.
3. 'S'blood' is an ancient oath shortened from 'God's blood'. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology says this is 'probably' the origin, but then goes on to note, 'there is no ground for the notion'.
4. 'Blood' as an aristocratic young roisterer has also been proposed. The OED also favours this as a possible origin because its earliest citations of 'bloody' as an intensifier were in the phrase 'bloody drunk', which it conjectured meant 'as drunk as a blood'.
5. 'Bloody' as an adjective drevived from 'blood', a liquid both vivid and distressing, is also a favoured origin for the word.

It has further been suggested that the sanctioned use of the word in Britain has remained something of a taboo because the word was a class indicator. It was very commonly used by members of the working class and therefore seen as completely inappropriate by members of the middle class. Its use was particularly frowned upon in Victorian England. There is some support for this view in the fact that 'bloody' appears to be used with relative impunity by English nobility or gentry. The argument would appear to be that those who are assured of their social standing can say what they want.

Internet information
A full and uncensored version of the Tourism Australia commercial can be viewed at http://www.wherethebloodyhellareyou.com/
If you wish to view the commercial you will need to click the button labelled 'View the ad'. It may take a little while to load.

Tourism Australia's full internet site can be found at http://www.tourism.australia.com/Marketing.asp?lang=EN&sub=0413
The site gives a full history of the development of the new promotional campaign and a detailed justification of it.
Some of this information can be found at http://www.tourism.australia.com/NewsCentre.asp?sub=0315&al=2120

On February 23, 2006, the federal Tourism Minister, Ms Fran Bailey, issued a media release announcing the new promotional campaign and explaining some of the concepts and research behind it.
A full text of this release can be found at http://minister.industry.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=941C0C79-C6A8-94E8-87946FEF33A5D9C2

On February 28, 2006, the federal Tourism Minister, Ms Fran Bailey, issued a further media release giving additional information on the campaign. This can be found at http://minister.industry.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=AEF99C0D-C6ED-0161-2081A86028AB6BB3

On February 23, 2006, Tourism Minister Fran Bailey gave an interview on ABC Radio National in which she defended the new advertising campaign. A transcript of the interview can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1576853.htm

The federal Labor Party's Internet site has a series comments from the Opposition leader, Mr Kim Beazley. Included in these are some critical remarks about the most recent Tourism Australia campaign.
These remarks can be found at http://www.alp.org.au/media/0206/riloo240.php
Readers will need to scroll some way down the page to find the relevant comments. They would also be wise to copy these remarks as the site is updated frequently.

A Times-online opinion piece treating the promotional campaign, written by their Canberra correspondent, Ray Marcelo, can be found at http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10295-2055531,00.html
The piece is essential critical of the new campaign.

The British Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) has a set of guidelines which indicate what materials can included in advertisements intended to be broadcast in Great Britain.
The most relevant section is point 6.2.7
These guidelines can be found http://www.bacc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/71A7BDBD-22FF-4C94-8FAD-A3557145B3D2/0/NotesofGuidancepdf.pdf

The English Usage in the News Site has a detailed discussion of the possible origin of and various attitudes to the word 'bloody'. This can be found at http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifbloody.shtml

Arguments against Tourism Australia's current advertising campaign
1. The campaign promotes a narrow, crude and stereotypical view of Australia
The campaign has been described as presenting a restricted and clich‚d view of Australia. The focus on beaches, deserts, the outback, Uluru, beer drinking and bikini-clad young women has been condemned as ignoring a great deal of what makes Australia a rich and vibrant country. It has been claimed that Australia's diversity of cultures, our cities, our intellectual, artistic and sporting achievements receive almost no acknowledgement in this campaign. One industry critic has argued that the advertisement is 'pandering to crude national stereotypes'.
The Times' Canberra correspondent, Ray Marcelo, has written, ' ... if the initial reaction in Australia is any guide, the adverts could prompt a spell of national navel-gazing akin to that which followed the Paul Hogan campaign. That campaign provoked criticism for portraying Australia as a nation of happy simpletons.'
New South Wales Christian Democrat MP, Gordon Moyes, has rejected the language used because he believes it is part of 'selling an uncouth culture'. He told The Australian newspaper, 'We don't need to promote a lack of culture which reinforces poor manners.'
Michael Graham, the chief executive of the branding company Landor, has condemned the campaign as 'inexplicable'. He told The Australian newspaper, 'It short-sells us.'

2. The campaign promotes a dated view of Australia
Critics of the campaign have also claimed that it presents an outdated view of Australia, one which, in its emphasis on Anglo-Saxon ockerism, ignores the racial diversity which is a feature of contemporary Australia.
It has further been claimed that the simple crudity which is featured in the ad is also now outmoded, more reflective of the Australia of Bazza McKenzie than the Australia of today. This view was expressed by an Australian national currently living in Britain who in a letter to The Times newspaper wrote, 'The tired old clich‚ of crass Aussies took years to break down here, so the ad seems a bit out of touch and outdated.'

3. The campaign will offend some potential tourists
It has been claimed that the slogan will be found offensive in many of the countries where it is planned to run the advertising campaign. The leader of the federal Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, has stated, 'Many will find it offensive ... [in] most of the countries I've visited over the years, I don't think that [use of words] would necessarily be well understood. It's a swear word which, at least in the Anglo Celtic world, is well known. Usually it is used more pejoratively in places like the United Kingdom than it is in Australia.'
Liberal backbencher, Alan Cadman, has expressed serious concerns about the promotion campaign. Mr Cadman has said, 'I just hope it doesn't damage the Australian image. I think that in an Australian context, people usually can say those things to somebody they know well. I don't think they would use it to a stranger and, in this instance, we're talking to strangers of a different culture, who I think may be offended.'
Another Liberal MP, Stuart Henry, has indicated that he too thinks the colourful language will not go down well in overseas markets. Mr Henry has said, 'As a slogan, I am not sure about it. I don't think it's going to work. I have doubts about that sort of expression in the Asian market.'
It has been claimed that the fact that Tourism Australia already plans to modify its campaign in Asia, before the original concept has even been run there, indicates that it is a failure. Scott Morrison, the director of Tourism Australia, has stated, 'Japan, Korea, Thailand and Singapore will get expletive-deleted versions of the campaign. We're being a bit cautious up in Singapore and have taken a pro-active stance there.'

4. The campaign will not be understood by some potential tourists
A number of critics have argued that the new tourism campaign will not translate well in many of the countries where it is to be shown. According to this line of argument, the Australian colloquialism will not be understood in Europe or the United States.
The Queensland premier, Mr Peter Beattie, has suggested that the promotion was 'a terrible gaffe'. Mt Beattie has stated, 'I don't know how this will translate in Europe. I just think a lot of people will think "What the bloody hell does this mean?" I don't think it will penetrate the market.'
Mr Beattie's criticism has been seen as significant as he is the leader of a state whose economy relies heavily on tourism.

5. The advertisement's banning in Britain is not a positive development
It has been claimed that the banning of the Australia Tourism ad in Britain has been damaging to the intended promotional campaign. If the ban remains the ad will either not be able to be shown in the British Isles or will only be able to be shown in a substantially modified form.
'New South Wales' Tourism Minister, Ms Sandra Nori, has stated, 'If anyone thinks that any publicity is good publicity, they don't know the first thing about marketing. Perhaps there'll be a little bit of attention drawn to the ads initially but at the end of the day a multi-million dollar campaign can't be run because we've got one word in there that is banned in one of our key markets.'

6. The advertisement is a misuse of taxpayers' money
It has been claimed that there is no proper regulation of Tourism Australia to ensure that it is using Australian taxpayers' money effectively. When Tourism Australia's last major promotional campaign was internally reviewed the Government was concerned at the results and called for an audit. The results of these review processes are unlikely to ever be made public.
Writing in the advertising and marketing magazine, B&T, in July 2005, Danielle Veldre wrote, 'From the perspective of an Australian taxpayer don't I have a right to know how my money is being spent, by whom and when?'
The current advertising campaign, which will cost some $180 million, all drawn from taxpayers, has been condemned as a similar waste which will also not be properly open to public scrutiny.

Arguments in favour of Tourism Australia's current advertising campaign
1. The advertisement presents a view of Australia likely to appeal to potential tourists
The new campaign has been praised as a return to a promotion style pioneered by Paul 'Crocodile Dundee' Hogan in 1983 when the film star invited Americans to come over and share the relaxed Australian lifestyle with his slogan, 'I'll slip an extra shrimp on the barbie for you.' That tourism promotion campaign increased arrivals from the United States by 40 percent. It has been strongly argued that this new campaign, in making a similar style of presentation will be similarly successful, especially in the United States.
Two years ago, Tourism Australia spent $360 on a promotional campaign which featured celebrities such as Delta Goodrem, Richie Benaud and poet Les Murray and which sought to stress Australia's cultural and sporting achievements. The campaign did not achieve the desired results in terms of attracting greater numbers of tourists and so it was decided to revert to a style of promotion that had been successful in the past.

2. The advertisement has been widely tested to ensure its effectiveness
The advertising campaign had been extensively researched to determine its probable effectiveness for its different target audience. Some $6.2 million was spent on research and some 47,000 people were quizzed on their response to the promotion.
Mr Scott Morrison, the director of Tourism Australia, has stated, 'Tourism Australia has made an unprecedented investment in making sure that we have done our homework on this campaign. In total, 86 focus groups were conducted in our top seven tourism markets which make up 67 per cent of our inbound tourism business, to develop and test this campaign. More broadly we have invested $6.2 million in the past eighteen months through our brand tracking, segmentation studies, international visitor studies, focus groups [and] depth interviews...'

3. The company producing the advertisement has conducted previous successful campaigns
The campaign was designed by global agency M&C Saatchi, who shot the award-winning '100% Pure New Zealand' campaign.
Since the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign began six years ago, visitor numbers to the country have increased by more than 50 per cent and their foreign exchange spend has doubled, reaching a record $6.6 billion in 2005. Tourism is now one of the country's major export industries. It generates about 10 per cent of gross domestic product and employs one in every 10 workers. Visitor numbers are expected to top more than three million a year in 2010.

4. The language used in the advertisement is a reflection of Australia's casual culture
The advertisement's primary slogan, 'Where the bloody hell are you?' has been defended as a reflection of the Australian culture. It has been claimed to display our welcoming informality. The Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard, has observed in relation to the use of the word 'bloody', 'It's a colloquialism. It's not a word that is seen quite in the same category as other words that nobody ought to use in public or on the media or in advertisements. I think the style of the advertisement is anything but offensive but is in fact in context and I think it's a very effective ad.'
Australia's Minister for Tourism, Fran Bailey, has claimed, 'The [British] regulator is out of touch with British opinion - based on our research and the initial feedback the British are loving our cheeky sense of humour.'
Fran Bailey has further claimed the profanities were 'presenting Australia as we are - we are plain-speaking, we are friendly'.
Laura Bingle, the 18 year old model who features in the advertising campaign and who utters the phrase which has caused the controversy, has gone to Britain with the Australian Minister for Tourism to seek to have the ban overturned. Ms Bingle has said, 'The ad is just a fun and friendly thing and shouldn't be a problem. It's what Australia is about.'

5. The banning of the advertisement in Britain is likely to widen its appeal
It has been claimed that the fact that Tourism Australia's advertising slogan has been banned in Britain is likely to heighten its appeal, giving it both free publicity and the attractiveness of the taboo. Mr Scott Morrison, Tourism Australia's managing director, has said the ban was a massive boost. 'We thank the UK authorities for the extra free publicity and invite them to have a bloody good holiday in Australia, especially with the Commonwealth Games now on and the Ashes coming up later in the year,' Mr Morrison observed.
It has been suggested that the banning will arouse the curiosity of potential British tourists and send them to Tourism Australia's Internet site. Scott Morrison has commented, 'This is a great opportunity to really promote the campaign. We'll be driving people to the Internet like there's no tomorrow.'
Australian Tourism Minister, Fran Bailey, has claimed that the ban was 'comical', because the uncut commercial would still appear in cinema, in print and online in the United Kingdom.
Mr Matthew Hingerty, the director of the Australian Tourism Export Council, has also argued that controversy can be a good thing. 'You only have to look at Paul Hogan all those years ago that generated a little bit of controversy,' Mr Hingerty has said. He has further suggested, 'I don't think this will significantly affect the campaign, in fact it may well leverage it up if it gets English people talking about Australian tourism.'

6. Tourism is very important to the Australian economy
It has been claimed that the $180 million planned to be spent on the development of the current tourism advertising campaign is money invested in a major Australian industry.
The chairman of Tourism Australia, Tim Fischer, has claimed the new campaign aims to increase the economic benefits of tourism to Australia. 'This campaign is about increasing the dollars that we earn from international tourism and encouraging the spread of tourists right across Australia, especially for rural and regional areas,' Mr Fischer has stated.
The Minister for Tourism, Fran Bailey, has further noted, 'It is money well-spent. It's a $73 billion industry, it employs directly half-a-million Australians.'
Last year, 700,000 Britians visited Australia, spending $3.4 billion, making Britain the most valuable tourism market.

Further implications
It seems probable that the BACC will reverse its decision to ban the most recent Tourism Australia campaign. Whatever the outcome of its reconsideration of the ban, Tourism Australia's inclusion of the phrase 'bloody hell' was always going to be controversial. The phrase, and in particular, the word 'bloody' are in direct contravention of the BACC guidelines.
One is forced to wonder whether BACC were not deliberately pushing the envelop and in the process attracting the free publicity that a ban would generate. Saatchi did months on pre-development and then post-development research. It seems unlikely that either they or Tourism Australia were unaware that the ad would be banned, at least initially, from television in Britain.
The plan, should the ban to remain in place, appears to be to run the television campaign with the slogan amended to 'Where the hell are you'. Print advertising and the cinema and Internet campaign will be able to go ahead unaltered. Of course, if the ban is lifted, Tourism Australia will simply have had the boon of a great deal of free publicity while the ban was discussed in the media. They will also have succeeded in generating the free and careless image that they appear to believe will attract the section of the tourist market to which they are attempting to appeal.
So far as much of the rest of the world is concerned the potentially contentious slogan was never an issue. Tourism Australia appears never to have intended to release the campaign unamended in those Asian countries where it is likely to be seen as offensive. There was always an alternative version to be released in those markets where the version that has been seen in Australia may have been problematic.
What the focus on the 'bloody hell' aspect of the campaign neglects is whether the total image being generated of Australia in this campaign is likely to be effective. Clearly, at this point it is far too early to say. What does seem likely, however, is that the new campaign is unlikely to have as many points of resonance with potential overseas travellers as Saatchi's spectacularly successful '100% Pure New Zealand' campaign, which managed to tap into conservation concerns, fear of terrorism, fear of urban crime and respect for indigenous cultures - all this on the back of the worldwide success of the 'Lord of the Rings' films, which were shot in New Zealand. 'Where the bloody hell are you?' does not seem to have the same pulling power.

Newpaper sources used in the compilation of this issue outline
AGE, March 1, page 6, news item by N Khadem, `Ads run foul of Singapore rules'.
AGE, February 28, page 15, comment by Natasha Cica, `What the bloody hell do our tourism chiefs think they're doing'.
AGE, February 25, Insight section, page 8, editorial, `Bloody hell! Is this the best we can do?'.
AGE, February 24, page 3, news item by N Khadem, `Bloody hell! New tourism advertisements go on the offensive to boost visitor dollar'.
AGE, March 12, page 10, news item by Annabel Crabb and Philip Hudson, `More "bloody" mess as tourism chief quits post'.
AGE, March 10, page 3, news item by J Lee, `Bloody Hell! Sensitive Poms rein in our ads'.

AUST, February 24, page 17, editorial, `Better bloody work'.
AUST, February 24, page 7, news item by S Canning, `Shocker or just ocker? Truly blue tourism slogan gets the PM's nod'.
AUST, March 10, page 3, news item by S Canning, `Ad is too bloody blunt for the Brits'.
H/SUN, February 25, page 26, editorial, `Cheeky or crass?'.
H/SUN, February 24, page 21, comment by Andrew Bolt, `Give me Hoges!'.
H/SUN, February 24, page 11, news item by Frenkel and Harvey, `Bikini babes and ockers lure tourists'.
H/SUN, March 3, page 22, comment by Fran Bailey, `I think ad is "bloody" brilliant'.
H/SUN, March 10, page 3, news item by Michael Harvey, `Too bloody rude for UK'.
H/SUN, March 10, page 21, cartoon.

Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google