Hot indian chicken

Advertised brand: Little India restaurant

It is your sex life. Not a crash test!

Advertising Agency: D'arcy Athens, Greece
Copywriter: Lefteris Maggos
Art Director: Bill Kanellopoulos

Have protected sex

Advertising Agency: Enfants Terribles, Italy
Creative directors: Maurizio Ratti, Riccardo Quartesan
Strategic planner director: Valerio Franco
Project manager: Anna Mazzone
Art directors: Marìka Mangafà, Red Ant
Copywriter: Hilija Russo
Photographer: Matteo Bottin

Have protected sex

Have protected sex

Advertising Agency: Enfants Terribles, Italy

This controversial print advertisement was launched by Kiss cigarette in Israel as it brand promotional campaign. The Health Ministry of Israel had filed a formal complaint against this series of advertisements. The complaint alleged that the cigarette-packet figures bear a resemblance to human beings and consequently the images violated the law against the use of human figures in tobacco advertising. It also alleged that that the essential health warnings, which must take up one third of the surface area of cigarette packets, were absent. The campaign had also attracted complaints on the ground that the advertisements were obscene.

On the other hand, the agency responsible for the advertisements contended in its defense that the advertisements were ‘works of art’ and insisted that the figures appeared in advertisements were not actual and hence it cannot be treated as illicit. The agency maintained that those in the intended audience for the adverts would not be offended by the images.

However, after the Health Ministry’s complaint, the agency was held guilty of using human figures to advertise tobacco and it was fined.

This controversial print advertisement was launched by Kiss cigarette in Israel as it brand promotional campaign. The Health Ministry of Israel had filed a formal complaint against this series of advertisements. The complaint alleged that the cigarette-packet figures bear a resemblance to human beings and consequently the images violated the law against the use of human figures in tobacco advertising. It also alleged that that the essential health warnings, which must take up one third of the surface area of cigarette packets, were absent. The campaign had also attracted complaints on the ground that the advertisements were obscene.

On the other hand, the agency responsible for the advertisements contended in its defense that the advertisements were ‘works of art’ and insisted that the figures appeared in advertisements were not actual and hence it cannot be treated as illicit. The agency maintained that those in the intended audience for the adverts would not be offended by the images.

However, after the Health Ministry’s complaint, the agency was held guilty of using human figures to advertise tobacco and it was fined.