I’ve got no dog in this fight, but that was awesome. Thanks!
Okay.
I am entirely wrong.
Tris
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now, if I PM you my local elementary school’s phone number, would you please explain that to them, so that I can continue with my Dildo the Clown show?
the balloon animals are amazing!
Yep. True. Agreed. But so what?
Yep. True. Agreed. But again, so what?
Probably not, because “Vodafone,” unlike “Virgin,” is not a word that can (not must, can) be used with regards to sex.
You think high-school kids are going to limit their thinking to “it’s a company name?” No way. They see a picture of a classmate with the word “virgin” on it and they’re going to tease her about being the poster child for virginity, or somesuch. The other meanings of the term, no matter how legitimate, are irrelevant in that context. Perhaps in Australia, where kids are familiar with it as a brand name, this would be less likely. Perhaps that’s why Australian marketers didn’t consider the effect this could have on an American kid. But the fact remains that if someone’s picture is associated with the word “virgin,” NO MATTER WHAT THE ORIGIN OR PARTICULAR MEANING INTENDED, American high-schoolers are going to make the association with the sexual meaning, and be all too happy to tease or ridicule on that basis.
It’s not about what’s implied, it’s about what’s inferred. It’s not about whether it must be taken as a sexual reference, it’s about whether it will (by some) be taken as a sexual reference. Fume all you want about what it meant and about how it should be interpreted, but you cannot control the minds of adolescents who are prone to a bit of devilishness. If a naughty aspect can be found, they will find it, “proper meaning” be hanged.
Is there any evidence at all that the girl in question is upset or has been teased over ‘Virgin’? In the reading I’ve done, including posts by someone claiming to be her brother over on the Flickr discussion for the advert, I’m yet to see any claim for that.
I’ve seen them say that the advert makes her look dumb, and a loser and basically takes the piss but no mention that the word virgin offends them.
Oh for goodness sake, don’t be dragging actual facts into this discussion! The horrors!!! :eek:
And vetbridge, you are being intentionally “obtuse” because we both know that there is no non-sexual connotation for “dildo.” 
So what? Why should Virgin Australia be concerned about the fact that immature kids in the US need to grow the fuck up? The ad wasn’t intended to be distributed in the US anyway. Aussie kids (the ad’s target) know that Virgin is a mobile phone company and there’s nothing sexual about the name in that context. If kids in the US think there’s some link between the models in their ads and not getting laid, then that’s their problem, not that of an Australian company that’s not even advertising in the US.
Again, so what? The problem is on the US end, IMHO. Lots of things can be inferred to be “sexual references”, does that mean we should all communicate in Kalahari Tongue-Click lest someone, somewhere see a double entendre? No, we don’t.
FWIW, there’s a brand of Cheese here called “Coon Cheese”. Perhaps that should be withdrawn from sale in case someone in the US gets offended? The world doesn’t revolve around the US, amazingly, and companies operating in other countries tend to be, y’know, more focused on their own markets than worrying about the infinitesimal chance that someone in the US might misinterpret their company name or slogan…
Thank-you, Martini Enfield. 
That’s not implied by the ad.
In the picture, the girl is showing a peace-sign with her fingers. Virgin ads routinely show their subjects putting up that sign, or “V”, to signify that they’ve accepted the specifically branded awesomeness that is their telecommuncations. She’s not the pen-friend, not to be dumped. She’s the cool, with-it, attractive 16-year-old girl who is Virgin’s target market.
That was my take. It never occurred to me that she was the dumpee.
There is legal precedent for this sort of thing. The unauthorized use of a person’s image in advertising CAN be considered libelous. The untrue implication being that the person has been paid to endorse the product. This may be libelous in certain circumstances.
See Tolley Vs Fry 1931.
NOTE: IANAL, ask a lawyer for clarification of the legal issue.
As for the suggestion that it’s a “cash grab,” so what? Virgin have used her photo to make a profit for themselves. Why shouldn’t they pay her for it?
Sorry, dude. I’m gonna do it again and chuck in a bit of debate fodder.
This CNN video is about the case and has an interview with the family’s lawyer. Mention is made of the ‘free text Virgin to Virgin’ thing and its double meaning.
The link comes from Creative Commons FAQ page on the case (they being defendants) and that page, in turn, is via the MetaFilter discussion on the matter.
Most of you keep forgetting something:
Virgin Mobile Australia are not based in the US and are therefore not subject to US Law.
There is absolutely nothing this girl can do about it. Even if she took Virgin to court and a judge ruled in her favour, Virgin Australia don’t have to pay out. An Australian court will not enforce a Foreign Judgement, especially in a civil case. She- and her family- and just wasting their time and money trying to sue Virgin. The best thing she could have done, IMHO, is shut the fuck up and waited for the ad campaign to finish on its own.
Let me reiterate something: No-one in Australia knows who she is (or at least that was the case prior to her getting lawyers involved). The way I see the ad, she’s portrayed in the as as the hip, cool, with it teen that’s absolutely Virgin’s target market. Given that other people have expressed the same sentiment, and that’s how I’d think most people here would read the ad as well. In short, it sounds like someone’s trying to cash in on the tenuous link between the company’s name, well known advertising slogan, and lack of sexual activity, and they’re going to discover that it doesn’t work that way in Australia.
Also, wouldn’t most parents want their Teenage Daughter to be a virgin? Especially in the US, which seems to get considerably more worked up over that sort of thing than most other civilised countries…
As for the whole “but Virgin has two meanings! They’re implying the people in the photos aren’t getting laid!” thing: See my earlier post about how that’s not Virgin Australia’s problem that people in US are misinterpreting a well-known Australian ad campaign.
And I don’t think Virgin Australia are making any money out of the campaign somehow- I’ve covered this in earlier posts. They’re not doing very well at all here, snappy ad campaigns to the contrary.
Double meaning? What possible double meaning could there be? The word means “A major international Corporate entity.” How could that be construed as a double meaning?
Tris
YOU were the one denying the double meaning. You were refusing to admit that its intentions were innocent, claiming it could only ever mean something sexual.
We aren’t denying it may be construed that way. We are arguing that it isn’t being used in that way.
You were arguing it was deliberately and intentionally used in a sexually suggestive way, but in this case it was not - it is being used only as a descriptive term for its phone service. How people in other countries choose to misinterpret it is not the company’s fault.
You are sure it isn’t. You say, in fact that it is not.
I say it is. I think the level of stupidity necessary for the entire matter to have been innocent of any intent at sexual inuenedo to be unlikely in the extreme. Your continuing fervor in maintining that thes advertising agencies have that blind a view of language does give evidence that monumental levels of stupidity are in fact possible.
I did not say an innocent interpretation was not possible. Lawyerspeak might consider deliberate stupidity to be exactly like innocence. I don’t. They were aware of the sexual inunendo. The name of the company was chosen for it. I am not stupid enough to fail to notice it. Only lawyers could possibly entertain the notion that they were.
It might have all been fairies waving wands that caused the picture to exactly resemble the young woman. I don’t believe that either.
Tris
Taking your argument to its logical (!) conclusion, every ad that any of the Virgin companies do is using the ‘sexual being’ of the person depicted in the advert. Fuck knows what happens if an ad consists of a photo of a tree - “Cor! Look at that sweet virgin knothole.”
No, even though the innuendo is there in every mention of the company name, it isn’t necessarily about anyone. This ad was. This time, they did use a sexual reference to a child, for their own purposes. I am assured by our legal talent that it is entirely legal to do so. I accept that. It is still reprehensible, and legal opinions have no bearing on that.
Pretending that is isn’t a sexual innuendo is just stupid.
Tris
As an aside, speaking of Flickr, and flicking, and innuendo, how about this Virgin campaign?
Anytime Virgin uses someone younger than 18 in an ad is a sexual reference?
What if the “child” is at the age of consent in the country the ad is running?