The impact of contemporary advertising simply does not match what it once was.
With the exception of that Jet2 Holidays voice-over that appears to have been recorded while smiling, nothing particularly memorable comes to mind.
One advertising executive believes he understands the reason behind this decline.
Andrew Harrison served as the marketing director responsible for Yorkie’s campaign suggesting the chocolate was not for girls.
He has stated that such a campaign would be completely unacceptable in today’s environment, attributing this to a widespread decline in people’s ability to appreciate humour.
One can readily envision the backlash such an initiative would generate.
People would overlook the comedic intention, despite this being the very element that once held significance.
I was present during that era and women were genuinely able to purchase Yorkie bars.
Had a Government implemented an actual prohibition preventing one gender from doing something, I would have protested. However, when it is merely a jest, it ought to be treated accordingly.
The irony he highlighted deserves attention.
The campaign was developed with substantial contributions from senior female professionals, including those working at the advertising agency J Walter Thompson.
The women within the team participated in creating the advertisement informing women they could not have the chocolate.
Steve Allen observes that a Yorkie Bar advertising campaign would not be permissible in current times (Image: Steve Allen)
This was deemed entertaining rather than something warranting intervention from international bodies.
It represented a counteraction to the overly sexualised chocolate advertisements prevalent at that time.
Back then, Flakes were marketed by depicting a woman in a bath.
Even the Cadbury’s Caramel bunny possessed an inexplicable attractiveness.
The Yorkie campaign operated from 2002 through to 2012.
In 2006, Nestlé introduced a pink-wrapped version specifically targeting girls because female demand proved so substantial that they needed to create a product specifically for those whom the original product was not intended.
I did not pursue legal action because I recognised it as a jest and could have purchased one whenever I wished without disguising myself.
I would push Mr Harrison’s argument further by suggesting that the issue extends beyond merely a loss of humour.
Currently, jokes undergo more examination than government policy, more than tax increases, more than matters of genuine importance.
Treating something as merely humorous previously served as justification for why it was acceptable.
Now it attracts considerably more scrutiny.
Should a film screenplay contain offensive language, it receives an 18 classification.
Were a comedian to deliver the identical line on stage, their career would effectively be finished.
If you find yourself offended by a jest, you appear rather foolish.
You bear more resemblance to a confectionery product than the Yorkie itself.
Steve Allen works as a comedian, broadcaster and author. For additional content from Steve, tune in to his podcast ‘Steve N Allen Almost Daily’.