People will tell you that consumers have the ability to cause change. They say that if we care enough we can just choose companies that are ethical. So this company has decided to be ethical and advertised the fact and it's offended people so it gets censored.<p>A free market cannot exist without consumers having perfect knowledge. If we can't have perfect knowledge then we completely rely on the government to do the right thing.
As an advertisement, the piece is brilliant. I now know that a) there is a company called Iceland (still don't know what they sell -- but I now know of it), b) they put together a compelling story, c) they are environmentally aware and care for cute animals, d) that I might not know how to pronounce orangutang. Does not matter that the ad won't air in the UK. Major free press is free.<p>Their PR department and advertising agency needs a raise.
How can this article not link to the video? I guess it's this one? <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQXstNh45g" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQXstNh45g</a>
Having political ads banning is quite interesting. Here in the USA I have always looked at the avalanche of political ads as simply a "gift to the media owners" who must be collecting billions every election season. I look at that revenue as why we don't have saner political advertising regulation - the advertising lobby won't allow it.
Banning political ads is good. But IMO this ad is not political at all.<p>It is about climate change and the impact on the environment and animals. It is like maths and physics and not a matter of debate. It is not associated with any political party...
...I had no idea that political advertising was banned in the UK, but there you go.<p>As an American, some of the quotes from this this BBC News piece five years ago are really interesting: <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22238582" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22238582</a><p>"Political adverts are - and have always been - banned on British TV and radio. That ban has wide support and has helped sustain the balance of views which is at the heart of British broadcasting - and ensures the political views broadcast into our homes are not determined by those with the deepest pockets."<p>"The US experience shows the only people who would profit from TV attack ads are moneyed interest groups, TV networks and paid political consultants. The biggest loser would be democratic debate in Britain."<p>I'm not quite sure how to evaluate those perspectives in light of more recent political events, but still a really fascinating difference in something I've taken for granted as an American.