Veterans minister attacks Woolworths and warns brands against ‘trivialising’ Anzac Day
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has not ruled out a $50,000 fine for Woolworths for its ‘Fresh in our memories’ marketing push as he warned brands against trivialising the word Anzac and using it for commercial gain.
Senator Michael Ronaldson said he rang Woolworths at 7pm last night after learning of the campaign and demanded the supermarket pull down the website and end the promotional activity.
The campaign has been derided on social media with Woolworths accused of exploiting Gallipoli and Anzac Day for commercial gain, allowing people to generate memes with the words ‘Lest we forget’ and the Woolworths logo underneath.
In a statement, the minister said permission to use the word Anzac in any marketing form must be granted by the Government under the 1920 Protection of the Word Anzac Act.
How could anyone who walks upright not know that the use of the word Anzac was protected? The bad taste is bad enough, the ignorance is staggering.
Disgraceful!
Who was the person responsible for letting this campaign get anywhere near the client in the first place. It is the agency’s responsibility to be the guardian of the Woolworth’s brand.
Sure, a client approved it but the agency was the instigator of this foul campaign. Perhaps Woolworths needs to have a fresh look at the viability of their agency relationship.
Outstanding fail. Superb.
Politicians know a lot about trivilising ANZAC day,
they invented the concept.
First the piece from “Louie the Fly” on the Stephanie Scott murder earlier this week and now this.. and does anyone else recall when KFC asked us to “celebrate” ANZAC day with chicken a few years back on social media? To their credit it was swiftly removed (following public outrage on their facey page)
There are areas where commercial opportunities do not exist and whoever thought this was a good idea needs to have a good think about why this was a bad idea! Lack of experience? Or just insensitive.
Just my opinion but even if they omitted the “fresh” in our minds bit then it wouldn’t have caused as much outrage.
Whilst the SMH claims the fine is $50,000, the Protection of the Word Anzac Act in s 22 seems to state that the maximum fine is $1,000.
This is what happens when a callow agency deals with an equally inexperienced marketer…Disaster
I can’t help but think that selling ANZAC biscuits is for commercial gain. Is there some kind of blanket approval for the sale of ANZAC biscuits or are all of these stores, marketstalls and bakeries liable?
The Twitter @AnzacProfit highlights the many ‘creative’ uses of the Anzac theme in merchandising and advertising — no doubt much of it unauthorised.
One ad for an Anzac-themed rugby jersey has a banner logo for a concrete company over the image of a soldier. Are these vendors being held to the same accountability as Woolworths was?
The government have and continue to use “the ANZAC SPIRIT” as a marketing and self promotion tool since the 80s.
Wollies are crap for joining in, but the holier than thou attitudes by government and the rsl is laughable.
I hope they have the courage to tell foreign owned small shops they have to open at 1pm on Anzac Day the same as Aussie Shops. Hope they ban beer and cigarettes and gambling as it is a religious day celebrating war. No bad language from women
either.
@Grant, ANZAC biscuits might use the term, but they’re technically a recipe. And they’re available all year round, so it’d be a long bow to draw to suggest biscuit makers were cashing in on the ANZAC tradition through biscuits in that way.
@James,
Under s22(2) of the Act, the maximum penalty for a breach of the regulations in relation to to using the word Anzac in the course of trade is imprisonment for 12 months.
s4B(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 sets out rules for handling body corporates that receive sentences involving terms of imprisonment.
Essentially, the formula is:
Maximum fine in dollars=Penalty unit value*maximum term in months*25
=170*12*25
=$51,000
The SMH is correct.
To the question about selling ANZAC biscuits. That name had been used for that particular recipe a long time before they became commercially available. In fact the first published use of the name Anzac in a recipe was in an advertisement in the 7th edition of St Andrew’s Cookery Book (Dunedin, 1915). (Thanks Wikipedia).
This is the mistake of Carrspace, 100%. Every agency knows you need to get permission to go anywhere near Anzac. And if they had asked the RSL in the first place, this would have been knocked back and never have caused the scandal we see now.
This is very basic stuff. Carsspace must be very inexperienced or totally stupid. Can’t believe they didn’t know this. Makes you wonder what other mistakes they are making.
Taking shots off the net to run in their ads without paying copyright? Using hit songs on their work without paying for the rights? The list is endless.
What a arfuw ad very disgraceful from woollies to think it good for advertising purpose.
Ok, so it’s the fault of the agency, but who is signing off on this from the client? Ultimately they need to take responsibility as well. Perhaps tighter processes are needed. Of course it will all blow over but hopefully lessons learned for all of us, really.
How did no one at Leos cringe as they saw this one leave the building?
Hey Anonymous, no one at Leo’s cringed because it was never in their building to start with. Creative was done by Carrspace in Melbourne. A small upstart ‘experiencial’ agency. Maybe do some research before you comment next time.
The “blame” for this debacle should rest squarely with whoever the numbskull at Woolies was that signed off on this stupid tripe. The Agency, dumb as they were for suggesting it, are just another little group of chancers who frankly wouldn’t know better. Woolies, like so many marketers now are staffed with dopes who like to play with as many agencies as possible to make them feel important. No doubt Carspace’s appointment was the result of a massive time wasting procurement exercise which cost a whole bunch of similar little ‘specialist’ agencies a pile of money.
@Grant. ANZAC biscuits are one of very few items able to be legally marketed using the word ANZAC. It’s because they have an authentic place in ANZAC history and were sent to soldiers in Gallipoli by family and friends. They lasted the journey and had high nutritional value. Although I don’t think anyone should make a profit from a tragedy, I do think ANZAC biscuits are a way of keeping that piece of history alive. And it’s a damn sight better than cheap sweatshop gear that has no authentic place in the Anzac story or woolworths desire to keep it ‘fresh’. Facepalm.