Gruen Transfer’s controversial ‘Banning All Religions’ pitch topic prompts strong public reaction with over 160,000 YouTube views
Last week’s Gruen Transfer pitch topic which challenged Melbourne based agency Loud&Clear Creative and Sydney’s Play Communications to sell the idea of ‘banning all religion in Australia’ has prompted the largest response from the public in The Gruen Transfer’s four year history with over 160,000 views (and growing) on YouTube.
The show’s typically controversial topics in the past have included legalising child labour and lowering the legal drinking age to 16, but have never received such a reaction. In fact the next closest number of YouTube views for a pitch was to ban swearing in Australia, which received around 30,000 hits.
What has been the more astonishing than the number of views however is the debate and the discussion that has been raised between Atheists and various religious groups. Literally thousands of passionate posts and responses have been posted on various forums and Youtube.
‘It’s amazing that what is supposed to be an innocuous ‘tongue in cheek’ pitch at selling the ‘un-sellable’ has sparked debate in the community about religion’ said Loud&Clear Director Cade Witnish, whose team was responsible for one of the pitches.
Will Anderson, famous Australian comic and host of the Gruen Transfer said on the show ‘for the first time in four seasons of Gruen we had agencies decline to take a shot at it. No one had a problem when we wanted to bring back child labour, invade New Zealand or euthanise everyone over 80, but this idea scared people.’
13 Comments
It’s so true that an issue like this will naturally spark conversation and debate.
For those of us who have a Christian faith it does rub close to the edge. I don’t think that what Cade said was really on the money that it is innocuous. As soon as you poke an issue like this it will naturally provoke a response. I personally don’t find it offensive.
That said, if the pitch is really about selling the unsellable I actually think that ‘selling religion’ would be a lot more difficult.
Tish, pshaw and nonsense! Saying that “an issue like this will naturally spark conversation and debate” is fine – if this were the only isolated hot topic. But what makes this any more controversial than euthanasia or child labour is ridiculous.
One of the issues here is that many religions find that their following is dwindling, and will go to any lengths to try and maintain theirposition of power and influence. I was part of a recent attempt to encourage people to mark “no religion” on their census forms if they did not follow a religion. I had personal strong views on this matter – but I do haves strong view on people’s right to be free from religious or racial persecution, or having the right to marry another person regardless of religious and racial backgrounds or sexual preference.
I only joined this campaign as there was another campaign being distributed virally that was encouraging people to mark themselves as Christian to stop the Muslim community being represented fairly.
If Christian groups espouse love and inclusion, why are they so fast to codemn people and use xenophobia to persuade? Especially when “all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” why are they so intent on persecuting sinners and non-believers, when the Gospel message is to spreading word to all people?
I think the reason this one sparked such a debate is because it’s not obviously ‘unsellable’ to everyone. I’m a Christian, and hear from friends, family & acquaintances all the time about why I shouldn’t be a Christian, why I shouldn’t go to church, and what damage religion has done to our society. As a very active member of a mainstream church, obviously I do not agree with banning all religion, but I understand why some people would want to. Even one of the panelists on the show backed this up, when she chose her favourite based on liking making it about science & not fairytales, because she doesn’t believe in other fairytales. She wasn’t voting on what convinced her to change her mind, but rather what made her feel good about the decision she’d already made. That’s very different to convincing a nation to go to war with New Zealand, euthanise everyone over 80 or to bring back child labour! All ideas which are obviously meant to be taken in jest, because opponents to them don’t face ridicule or arguments about it all the time. I think you may get a similar response to ads on either side of the fence of: – wearing burkas, treatment of asylum seekers, gay marriage, climate tax, etc
Anyone who’s studied history (which I haven’t) knows all religions existed in perfect harmony until they came into contact with other religions.
The whole thing is either tribal or moral control. The only major one that comes close to making sense is the only one that says it’s not a religion, it’s a philosophy.
They are both marvellous ads, and should be run world wide. Neither one actually advocates “banning” religion, as the brief directed, but they do make rational, logical and truthful arguments as to why the world would be a much, much better place without religion and the harm and the damage religion causes. I would donate money to see these ads run in the real world.
@4:56
You’re right, selling religion would be more difficult. Just like selling fairies and unicorns.
Australian’s?????? Since when do Australians own the word would? Or is it some new contraction I don’t know about?
Seriously, if you’re going to pitch, proof it. It was a nice spot, otherwise and deserved to win.
Religion was an attempt to explain the sort of stuff any 5 year-old now understands – daylight and darkness, tides, storms, that sort of stuff. It’s from a time in dark human pre-history filled with superstitions – and that’s where it should have stayed. If you want repression and rules, that’s fine, but don’t foist them on everybody else and don’t assume moral superiority, OK? That’s all for now.
This went gangbusters in terms of views for one reason: Reddit.
Google it only if you can afford to do no more work today.
160K views of a you tube clip is indeed a lot. But to put it in context the “ultimate dog tease” clip has had 61 Million views. So… perhaps people are not that interested?
Speaking as a Christian, it’s been my experience that most people I hear comparing religion to fairytales have not actually looked into the historical accuracy of Judaism and Christianity- they are much happier to accept that mass marketed idea on faith alone.
I do not fear the historical scrutiny of my faith, I welcome it.
I found both ads brilliant, it is so soothing to the intelligent mind to see fantasy clearly defined as fantasy.
We need to build a wall