Lion Nathan has been running another Hahn beer television campaign, this time for the new product, “Hahn Super Dry”, a low calorie beer with the same alcoholic content as regular beer but a third of the calories. In line with the Hahn Premium Light campaign, the first television advertisement features a sexy woman (ballerina Natalie Decorte) dismayed by the one-track mind of her man, Scott McGregor from Temptation. A couple enjoy a romantic walk on what appears to be a Pacific Island beach. She takes a stick and draws a love heart in the sand. He takes his foot and transforms the shape into a pair of boobs while he swigs on his Hahn Super Dry beer. The tagline: “Super Honest. Super Refreshing”.
Now this is where it gets interesting. In the edited version he says “What!?”, he protests as she storms off. In the full version the woman proceeds to snap the piece of driftwood, crush a nut, mince some sausages, decapitate a potato chip and use her welding equipment to cut the end off a metal pipe. Click on the image below to play the video in YouTube
The campaign was developed at Clemenger BBDO, Sydney, by art director Baz Barker and Pic Andrews, copywriter Chris Pearce and agency producer Roy De Giorgio.
Hahn Super Dry ‘Love Boobs’ is online at hahnsuperdry.com.au. The site includes a taunting video clip reminding men of the dangers of ‘man boobs’. Low carb beer is the proposed answer.
Victoria’s peak health advisory body, VicHealth, has written to the Advertising Standards Bureau asking for the ads to be shelved. VicHealth CEO Todd Harper said the treatment of women in the ads on television and the internet was appalling. He said both ads breached the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code by suggesting consumption of alcohol causes or contributes to the achievement of sexual success.
In December 2006 the Advertising Standards Board considered complaints that the advertisement was discriminatory against women and found that the advertisement, when taken in its full context, condemned the man’s insensitive actions by implication and humour. The Board agreed that the advertisement did not condone sexist or insensitive behaviour and, if anything, poked fun at men. The Board considered that the advertisement was not discriminatory against women and hence found that the advertisement did not breach section 2.1 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics.
The Board noted the images of the woman running along the beach in a bikini and the images of her breasts. The Board noted that the woman was wearing acceaptable swimwear and that there was no nudity. The Board considered that such images did not breach the provision of the Code relating to inappropriate sexuality or nudity.