Senior adland execs explain why they’re refusing to work on the ‘No’ campaign in the same-sex marriage debate
As more senior creatives and CEOs ‘Say No to No’ in support of marriage equality in Australia, Mumbrella’s Abigail Dawson asks industry leaders if they would create or contribute to the ‘no’ campaign.
Following the Australian government’s decision to commit to a postal plebiscite on the issue of same-sex marriage last Monday afternoon, creative agency The Royals created a ‘Say No to No’ pledge.
The initiative asks agencies and industry professionals to agree not to work on the ‘No’ campaign if the proposed plebiscite goes ahead, with members of the advertising industry being urged to “help stop the harmful message and ‘Say no to No'”.
Hoping that Mumbrella will report on those who do take on the No campaign work.
Please do
I am so proud of our industry today. YES YES YES to The Royals’ Say NO to NO! Daisy says NO to NO!
Fair enough. I assume these people also support the rights of the bakers that wouldn’t make a cake for a gay wedding.
No Shane they wouldn’t – just the way they wouldn’t support the right of the bakers not to sell to blue eyed people.
It has to be assumed that if a baker chooses not to make a cake for a gay wedding, then that baker must be making a shitload of money. Wedding cakes as a whole, are expensive, and to coin a phrase are the cream of the crop for baking products in the baking industry. Even if the baker was objectionable. money is money, regardless of where it comes from.
An excellent snapshot of the bigotry of the media/political class.
Thanks, Mumbrella.
Hey if some people won’t bake for a gay wedding because they disagree with them, the media are entitled to do the same.
Kind of agree.
1. Most ‘No’ campaigners are voting against usage of the term marriage. They are for equal rights – just by another name. Feel outraged if you wish – but ensure you are arguing the correct message or it will fall on deaf ears.
2. People that feel bullied on their views will double down. This is an emotional issue. I dare say no one is going to have their opinion swayed from their current view. But spend away.
How is it “equal” if it’s “by another name”?
Whatever happened to freedom. The elite are driving the vote to the NO corner!! ABC beware !!
And whatever happened to the freedom of the individual to have the choice to get married, regardless of gender!?! This isn’t about elitism, it’s about freedom of expression, equality and good ethics – qualities the ‘No’ campaign clearly doesn’t believe in and will do anything in its power to quell!
I was working at a STW agency when we did the work for the anti-mining tax campaign. I disagreed with the mining lobby completely, but the revenue unbelievable. Literally a gift from the sky in a very tough financial year for the agency, it actually kept many people employed in the agency. We thought that there would be a backlash from the media industry, we expected some media owners not to take the placements. We couldn’t have been more wrong. We were invited to conferences to talk about the strategy, with media owners falling over themselves to offer ‘never been done before’ placements, which crossed the line into editorial.
I applaud the ad industry say no to no campaign. However, let’s be realistic if the no campaign was cashed up, the quotes above would be all about free speech.
Rather than doing multiple stories on agencies (none of whom were actually asked) refusing to work on the no campaign has Mumbrella actually asked the no campaign which agencies are working on their creative?
Can I suggest you start with Big Red and other creative firms associated with the Coalition…
I’m not so sure it’s as simple as an agency associated with the “Coalition” doing the “No” campaign – after all, the leader of the Coalition, Turnbull, is supposedly a firm supporter of marriage equality.
People who disagree with marriage equality may be backwards morons but they are still human beings.
How can we sit here as an industry and pat ourselves on the back for forcing our views on others. We should not feel good about this, we are acting just like the Christian lobbyists on the other side of this debate.
We are doing the opposite of forcing our views on others.
The “no” campaign wants to legislate their particular view of morality for largely religious reasons (in violation of the Australian constitution which says we are a secular country). They are forcing their views onto others through law.
The “yes” people want to give people more freedom.
No vs No sounds like a suppression of free speech
It sounds like making a principled stand – those advocating “no” can still come up with campaigns.
I’m confused at some of these comments. Agencies are not forcing their views on others, nor curbing free speech. The no campaign is free to advertise and create their own campaigns, just as the agencies are free to choose which work they will take on.
‘Free speech’ doesn’t mean “everyone has to help amplify my message”.
but the leftist online hate mob is forcing their views on others with the threat of bullying dissenters out of jobs, clients, employees etc
again, I’m an advocate of same sex marriage and I identify as centre to moderate centre left in politics but I detest the virtue signalling, name calling and bullying by the left & loony left and believe it is extremely detrimental to the type of free and open speech and debate we need more of in Australia
any reasoned debate of this or any other issue will be swept aside in increasingly parochial and angry one sided discourse and the result may well be damaging to the left’s cause.
there is no doubt in my mind that the loony left’s SM hysteria played a significant part in the Brexit and Trump elections by drowning out the reasonable messages of the ultimately losing sides
we should all listen more and seek to understand before we seek to be understood. this campaign does the opposite of that
Like running a car in to them?
Like an anti-Trump supporter shooting a Republican Senator? Yes.
Like a gay activist (Jaden Duong) bombing the Australian Christian Lobby?
Makes me pewk when the ad industry people take a moral stand. They fall over each other to take millions to promote products that essentially fuck up lives, lives — and then they get all sanctimonious on PC issues. Wankers.
Flashpeddler has a point.
Offer an opinion that’s not vehemently FOR same sex marriage, and expect to have your career hung, drawn and quartered.
Feels a little Kim Ju-nfair to me.
While I understand the choice of individuals and individual agencies, I do think it’s problematic that an entire industry says no to a legitimate client for political reasons.
One commenter even wants Mumbrella to report on the agency that accepts the job, in other words shaming them into losing clients and going out of business. Nice to see the schoolyard bully has grown up.
We’re supposed to offer a professional service, but is becoming increasingly political. It’s pretty funny that the authoritarian left who take their slogans from Marxism works in the industry that greases the wheels of capitalism. But hey, I guess that’s what we’ve got cognitive dissonance?
If you’re willing to educate yourself about the gay marriage issue, you’ll probably discover that there are legitimate arguments against gay marriage. Certainly, only a simpleton thinks being against gay marriage equates to being against gay people.
Should every lawyer who believes murder is wrong refuse to defend murderers?
I say, be brave for once, take the job and help make the debate honest and rational.
Please tell us: what are these legitimate arguments? I would love to hear them. And I’m not being facetious. I am genuinely interested. So far I have not heard a single one that holds water.
this isn’t the point at issue here.
the point is that those people who believe in the arguments against it should be allowed to present their beliefs without fear of recrimination
Why? Freedom of speech does not confer freedom from consequences. This is why defamation and anti-racial vilification laws exist.
You CAN say whatever you like but free speech goes both ways. You have no reason to expect a shoulder shrug as a response if you’re espousing an anti-equality viewpoint.
That sounds exactly like what the gay community has been saying for a very long time. Which is the point at issue here.
For too long they have not been allowed to present their beliefs without fear of recrimination.
If we are to continue in a society like that, there must be a watertight argument. One that is immune to criticism.
so now that the gay community can present their beliefs without fear of recrimination, we should balance things out by blocking any competitive arguments?
this is what it comes down to…the far left has become the bullying authoritarian agenda controller that they profess to hate when it’s the right doing the same thing
It’s not about blocking arguments. Just asking to hear them.
I am a reasonable person. If somebody – anybody – can give me a logical, considered and humane reason why gay couples should not marry, I will change my mind.
“Blocking competitive arguments”.
Lol. Calm down please. You’re so emotional about this you’ve forgotten that the Daily Tele, Sky News, the ACL, many other Churches being quoted in the mainstream media and a significant chunk of the LNP exists. It’s not hard to find anti-SSM opinions. Unfortunately.
I’m part of the indifferent majority – it doesn’t bother me either way if the word “marriage” is broadened or not, but thought it would be good to just get it done and dusted so we could move on to more important things.
But I also understand the views of traditionalists (generally older Australians) who are not evil but just a product of a different time. No one will ever convince them to change their views, but over time this generation will be gone along with their traditional morality, and society will evolve, as it always does.
The problem with the bandwagon-jumpers and virtue signallers and those who come to the debate hysterically arguing anyone with a different view to theirs is a bigot/homophobe/nazi/etc etc is that they isolate moderates like me and increase the chance of pushing me into a protest vote.
And that’s about where I am right now.
Maybe the “virtue signallers” are sick of so called “moderates” pretending they’re allies to equality when at the slightest sign of criticism they threaten to cast their vote against human rights for LGBTI people.
“slightest sign of criticism”….understatement much?
The argument ‘for’ is very solid, and letting the loonies on the other side talk about slippery slopes and bestiality etc. in an echo chamber, while SSM supporters calmly mounted a rational and articulate position to argue their case would have gone a long way towards nailing the popular vote.
Histrionics and an un-nuanced communication strategy that lumps all but the most fervent campaigners in one segment is a really dumb plan, ironic that marketers don’t seem to understand that.
You just don’t need to try so hard.
It’s going to be an an interesting vote in the wild westworld of the world wide web.
I’m already seeing in my FB news feed signs of how ‘no’ will be playing this one: duplicitously conflating a yes vote as being a slippery slope to all manner of other things…i.e. vote no to marriage equality. vote no to transgender politics. vote no leftist agenda…and the thing is, I can see this having real bite with meat and three veg voters.
The conundrum for any agency that takes on the ‘no’ vote is how they can both represent their client (and their clients interests) to the best of their abilities without getting down in the sewer with them.
Hope we’re not looking at the republic vote 2.0
If you’ve ever used the phrase “virtual signalling” to describe anyone other than the tiniest minority, heaven help you.
@over it
That´s a great point well made.
@Jaded
No wonder you don´t believe in virtue signalling, after all it´s a product of evolution.
Can we refuse to work on any LNP election campaign full stop?
All this is rubbish until we STOP GIVING AD CAMPAIGN MONEY TO NEWS CORP in half our campaigns since they are the ones who put us in this position in the first place (brainwashing the public, anti-safe schools, the list goes on…). If people in advertising really cared about this issue they wouldn’t be funding the paychecks of Piers Akerman and Miranda Devine – which by the way will continue to create inequality even after marriage equality is achieved. Wake up adland!!
Make no mistake, no one should be disrespected and all should have the same legal rights as anyone else in Australia, regardless of who they are.
But the “yes” campaign and supporters conveniently forget the most vulnerable of all Australians who will be significantly impacted by the suggested change to the definition of marriage: the children.
Is it okay for any government to legislate that it is okay for any child to grow up without a father or a mother?
It’s convenient to forget that the ideal environment for any child to grow and develop is with a father and a mother, as they both bring different and unique talents to the raising of their children.
For example, (ex) President Obama quoted that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.
Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
I have yet to see honesty in the “yes” campaign to explain how ignoring these facts, based on thousands of years of human experience, is not placing future generations of children at risk as they will be raised without the balance of both a father and a mother?
Unfortunately those who support a change to the definition of marriage place the needs of adults above what’s best for children.
Absolute bullshit Matthew! So many studies show no harm whatsoever to children of same sex marriages. Statistics also show that same sex couples are actually less likely to divorce and thereby providing continuity in quality of a child’s upbringing at a higher standard than an average straight married couple – have a guess what that is because most same sex couples have a higher combined income than non same sex married couples as an average across the population and decades of studies show having higher income parents delivers better lifetime outcomes. And with marriage rates dropping exponentially on a global basis in the western world the Christian church requires a boost, which will come from same sex marriage otherwise it risks becoming a practice that loses its relevance to a 21st-century society. What’s best for the child is not based on what sex their parents are it is about the continuity of their upbringing including things like stability and parents love for them. As humans, we all need to call BS when these harmful fake facts and fake news are espoused by these twisted people. So, Matthew, I suggest you go and read some scientifically validated studies because all of them debunk every single statement you made in your comment.