Sainsburys Xmas advertisement

['CHARD]

It's all maybe academic anyway, as here comes Band Aid 2...

 

Hate to be a Pop Chugger Anorak, but Band Aid 2 was the 1989 rerecording.  We're on Band Aid 30.

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry Mike, I can't agree.  There were just too many examples during the conflicts of the nineteenth century that demonstrated the futility of charging against a well-entrenched or well-defended enemy position.  There was no justification for the needless sacrifice and slaughter (on both sides) that arose from blindly following outdated military manuals.

Not exactly so.  The Generals were really having to learn from square one in many respects and a lot of what they learnt in the earliest parts of the war led to them to adopt tactical approaches which to us seem ludicrous in the middle part of the war as they had realised through several early actions that if they had more men available tp put in they could have forced the issue.  Loos in 1915 really spelt the end of that possibility as lines had settled so the new approach was developed of a tremendous barrage to wreck the enemy's defences followed by an early version of the creeping barrage and it was applied at the Somme - but for a variety of reasons it didn't work, dud shells, poorly led and inexperienced 'new army' battalions, and far stronger German defences than were thought to exist (or even be possible), plus a battle which was brought forward from the planned dates to relieve pressure on Verdun.  So it turned into a long, muddy and bl**dy struggle to reach what was actually quite a sensible line in tactical and strategic terms.

 

So ideas continued to be developed and worked to near perfection on the southern edge of the Ypres salient in the early half of 1917 but when they were tried, with some variation, to push up the hill to Passchendaele they did not work so well and activity was then vastly undermined by teh weather which led to yet another, and even muddier, bl**dy struggle to gain the high ground.

 

But by 1918 the same Generals - apart from some early duds long out of things produced some of the best tactics of the entire war with combined armour and infantry attacks supported by ground attack aircraft and keeping the artillery up as far as was possible.  Rawlinson, the General who planned much of the attack on the Somme introduced and planned these highly successful tactics.  Other Generals, such as the Australian Monash were equally successful in planning successful attacks but all involved loss of life because of the very nature of the kind of war being fought - and of course similar levels of casualty were suffered a generation later at the 'highly successful' battle at El Alamein and in Normandy as the British army fought its way out of the peninsula.

 

Simple fact is that wars result in casualties and the only answer to that is not to have wars.  The problem then is convincing the politicians that fighting wars, for whatever 'cause' is not a good idea and that people will die - but presumably as they aren't the politicians it doesn't matter so much to them.

[darrel]

It is very similar to the video for Paul McCartney's song pipes of peace. In fact it's almost a direct copy http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=J7ErrZ-ipoE

[Mark Dickerson]

Hate to be a Pop Chugger Anorak, but Band Aid 2 was the 1989 rerecording.  We're on Band Aid 30.

It'snotbeen30yearsIt'snotbeen30yearsIt'snotbeen30years...

[mezzoman253]

My comments would be exactly the same unless it was an unrelated nation cashing-in.  Lidl and Aldi are both agents in a free-market, profit-chasing Western Society.  Had this been their campaign why would I feel any different?  

 

If it was a Werthers Original or Toyota Yaris advert, then I would have a problem.

Confused.com. Why would these two be different? Werthers is German, as are Lidl & Aldi, and Toyota is Japanese. 

 

Rob

[Horsetan]

It is very similar to the video for Paul McCartney's song pipes of peace. In fact it's almost a direct copy http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=J7ErrZ-ipoE

 

....and similar in theme to Jonah Louie's "Can You Stop The Cavalry", which will no doubt have even greater air time this Christmas.

 

The use of war to shift records? Not much different to the use of war to shift grocery sales.....

[The Stationmaster]

....and similar in theme to Jonah Louie's "Can You Stop The Cavalry", which will no doubt have even greater air time this Christmas.

 

The use of war to shift records? Not much different to the use of war to shift grocery sales.....

British and US companies (and probably those in other nations as well) have used 'war' in order to advertise their wares for well over 100 years - frequently without any reference to a link to a particular anniversary and never - as far as I can tell - in a way such as this by linking to a particular centenary and with involvement of, and donation to, a charity devoted toe the provision of support and care for ex-servicemen.

 

The Sainsburys advert is unusual in not only celebrating the centenary of a particularly memorable occasion as it was a fairly spontaneous outburst of comradeship in what had developed into a very new kind of warfare and linking it to charitable donations from sale of the product being advertised.  Most past advertising and methods of promoting sales, other than those simply using pictures of military figures or equipment, had tended to depict scenes of fighting with a gallant survivor kept going by eating a particular brand of biscuit or whatever or an exhortation on the flip side or beneath the picture to but whatever it was being promoted.  

 

Amazing tho' it might sound printed advertising of today is remarkably bland and mild in comparison with what was around even in teh 1930s let alone over 100 years ago.

[raymw]

Society evolves - just 'cos things were done 100 years ago, and was OK, does not mean it is OK now. The whole point of the 'Sainsburys Advert' is Sainsburys. They have decided to jump on the bandwagon, afaik they are only giving 'the profit' to the British Legion - our money, not theirs. However, the whole art of the advert, is to cloud the real issues here.

 

Many years ago, I attended a meeting held in a Quaker Hall, at Street (the meeting was nothing to do with religion, they hire out their halls for all sorts of events). On sale was some 'Fair trade' coffee, at £1.00 per pack, cheaper than most other ground coffee. I'd no idea about 'fair trade', it was that long ago. A year or so afterwards, Sainsburys had the same coffee, at a much greater cost than their other lines. Why was that? Feel free to work it out for yourself.

 

I have the opinion, that the advert appears to make the British Legion as beggars at the rich man's table, and I would prefer it to be the other way round.

[Ozexpatriate]

The Generals' reaction was nothing to do with human kindness and far more concerned with 'fighting spirit' and the lack of interest someone might have in shooting somebody they had been shaking hands with only a few days earlier.  The nature of warfare was rapidly changing from the way it had been viewed, and carried on, in the past in Europe and there was probably still considerable concern at the higher echelons of the military as to the way in which this new kind of static war could be, or should be, fought.

Sorry Mike, I can't agree.  There were just too many examples during the conflicts of the nineteenth century that demonstrated the futility of charging against a well-entrenched or well-defended enemy position.  There was no justification for the needless sacrifice and slaughter (on both sides) that arose from blindly following outdated military manuals.

There are plenty of 19^th and 18^th century examples of charging against a well-entrenched position some successful, some not.

 

Despite the 'formation-based' battles of the Napoleonic era Wellington was primarily a 'defensive' tactician and it was his defensive line that ultimately won at Waterloo when the Imperial Guard was repulsed.

 

The same army that defeated Napoleon was humiliated by half their strength of combined militia, marines, sailors, and pirates in New Orleans in January 1915. A British army similarly fell to the French at Fort Carillon (Ticonderoga) in 1758 due to much the same causes in the difficulty of attacking a defensive position through an abatis. Without the abatis, a well defended position still can inflict withering casualties as happened to the British did in their victory at Breed's (Bunker) Hill in 1775.

 

Despite the 'futility' it had been an accepted part of warfare throughout centuries. What was different about the first world war was the stasis of two opposing entrenched front lines and machine guns. You could argue that the siege of Petersburg through 1864 and 1865 was a precursor to 20th century trench warfare, but they didn't have machine guns. In the end the Union prevailed at Petersburg in a war of attrition no less than what happened on the western front in the WW1.

 

There's no question that the WW1 generals were desperately trying to figure out a way to break the deadlock. As has been noted here (though not in this thread) the casualty rate was far higher in the mobile battles in the late summer and early autumn of 1914 before the trenches were established.

 

As to the commercial, my preference is not to have an opinion since I don't live in Britain and can't really speak to the prevailing sensibility there.

 

The event itself is worth remembering (and the commercial does so quite well). Whether the event should have some 'sacred' significance that transcends it's suitability for use in commerce is a moral question to which there are no 'right' answers.

 

I like ANZAC biscuits. Is that wrong?

[Graham Walters]

Not exactly so.  The Generals were really having to learn from square one in many respects and a lot of what they learnt in the earliest parts of the war led to them to adopt tactical approaches which to us seem ludicrous in the middle part of the war as they had realised through several early actions that if they had more men available tp put in they could have forced the issue.  Loos in 1915 really spelt the end of that possibility as lines had settled so the new approach was developed of a tremendous barrage to wreck the enemy's defences followed by an early version of the creeping barrage and it was applied at the Somme - but for a variety of reasons it didn't work, dud shells, poorly led and inexperienced 'new army' battalions, and far stronger German defences than were thought to exist (or even be possible), plus a battle which was brought forward from the planned dates to relieve pressure on Verdun.  So it turned into a long, muddy and bl**dy struggle to reach what was actually quite a sensible line in tactical and strategic terms.

 

So ideas continued to be developed and worked to near perfection on the southern edge of the Ypres salient in the early half of 1917 but when they were tried, with some variation, to push up the hill to Passchendaele they did not work so well and activity was then vastly undermined by teh weather which led to yet another, and even muddier, bl**dy struggle to gain the high ground.

 

But by 1918 the same Generals - apart from some early duds long out of things produced some of the best tactics of the entire war with combined armour and infantry attacks supported by ground attack aircraft and keeping the artillery up as far as was possible.  Rawlinson, the General who planned much of the attack on the Somme introduced and planned these highly successful tactics.  Other Generals, such as the Australian Monash were equally successful in planning successful attacks but all involved loss of life because of the very nature of the kind of war being fought - and of course similar levels of casualty were suffered a generation later at the 'highly successful' battle at El Alamein and in Normandy as the British army fought its way out of the peninsula.

 

Simple fact is that wars result in casualties and the only answer to that is not to have wars.  The problem then is convincing the politicians that fighting wars, for whatever 'cause' is not a good idea and that people will die - but presumably as they aren't the politicians it doesn't matter so much to them.

 

The change in tactics came about from the onset, with the British Generals thinking that it would all be over by Christmas, because the British army hadn't been defeated in however many years, the fist battle of Mons woke up the Generals when the cavalry they sent in were met by miles of barbed wire and more to the point automatic weapons.

 

It was the development of the machine gun that led to the stalemate in WW1, and is partly the reason why so many were killed on both sides.

 

The tactical advantage only came with the advent of the the "tank" and using it to protect the infantry as it moved forward.

 

The "creeping barrage" would have been effective if it were used properly, instead neither side wanted to risk shelling their own troops, so as soon as it stopped, each side knew a mass attack was on it's way, there was so much time between the cessation and the start of the  attack ( down to poor communications), that each side side had enough time to get back to forward positions an occupy machine gun posts.

 

The creeping barrage also led to the "salient" where a forward line could be almost surrounded and cut off because they had been successful in getting forward.

 

The other thing people don't think of, is that in some places the fronts were hundreds of yards apart, in other they may have been only ten yards apart.

 

My Grandfather fought at Galipolli, he also fought at Paschendale and on the Somme, and was eventually captured 4 months before the war ended, which may of saved his life, his company was wiped out only days after he was caught.

 

Some of the things written in his diary are not suitable for reading by anyone of any age, I know that he would not welcome this advert, people seem to be forgetting that this is celebrating the outbreak of the war.... should we really be celebrating the fact, that because of a peace treaty written 100yrs before, made us send millions of young men to their death ?

 

More ironic the fact that members of the Royal Family FOUGHT on both sides !

[Ozexpatriate]

More ironic the fact that members of the Royal Family FOUGHT on both sides !

The armies of both sides fought for members of the same royal family (King, Kaiser and Czar), but that was true for a very large percentage of historical European wars.

 

Wars of Austrian Succession, Spanish Succession and many, many more.

[EddieB]

Always bear in mind that whenever you respond favourably to an advertisement, you're putting yourself into the very demographic that those clever and manipulative marketing executives were aiming at all along.

 

The Sainsury's advert is pitched to appeal most strongly to white British, family men of a certain age - which is why there is interest in this thread here.  The drama also appeals to women, especially mothers, and I note that a similar discussion on mumsnet is running to over 200 posts.  (Apologies for the stereotyping, but that's what sells).

 

As for the "low key" references to Sainsbury's, they've generated so much more free publicity than ever they would by more overt advertising. 

[The Stationmaster]

The change in tactics came about from the onset, with the British Generals thinking that it would all be over by Christmas, because the British army hadn't been defeated in however many years, the fist battle of Mons woke up the Generals when the cavalry they sent in were met by miles of barbed wire and more to the point automatic weapons.

 

It was the development of the machine gun that led to the stalemate in WW1, and is partly the reason why so many were killed on both sides.

 

The tactical advantage only came with the advent of the the "tank" and using it to protect the infantry as it moved forward.

 

The "creeping barrage" would have been effective if it were used properly, instead neither side wanted to risk shelling their own troops, so as soon as it stopped, each side knew a mass attack was on it's way, there was so much time between the cessation and the start of the  attack ( down to poor communications), that each side side had enough time to get back to forward positions an occupy machine gun posts.

 

The creeping barrage also led to the "salient" where a forward line could be almost surrounded and cut off because they had been successful in getting forward.

 

The other thing people don't think of, is that in some places the fronts were hundreds of yards apart, in other they may have been only ten yards apart.

 

My Grandfather fought at Galipolli, he also fought at Paschendale and on the Somme, and was eventually captured 4 months before the war ended, which may of saved his life, his company was wiped out only days after he was caught.

 

Some of the things written in his diary are not suitable for reading by anyone of any age, I know that he would not welcome this advert, people seem to be forgetting that this is celebrating the outbreak of the war.... should we really be celebrating the fact, that because of a peace treaty written 100yrs before, made us send millions of young men to their death ?

 

More ironic the fact that members of the Royal Family FOUGHT on both sides !

I would suggest a study of history might help.

 

At Mons the side which was advancing was the Germans - arriving literally from marching in column and going into the attack, the defenders (complete with machine guns - albeit not many) were the British who were pushed back/withdrew as a result of sheer weight of numbers attacking them and being outflanked.  No such thing then as heavily wired trench systems at Mons and all armies were in any case using cavalry mainly as reconaissance.  In fact the first British soldier to open fire in that area was a cavalryman - shooting at a German cavalryman.

 

Thus the lesson learnt was, as I said, that it was possible to force the issue by weight of numbers although the Germans failed in that at First Ypres partly due to by then relying on reserve regiments who could not march as fast or as far as regulars and were also less experienced.  But still the lesson learnt was one of numbers and force - even against machine gun fire - but it was not a lesson, as Loos demonstrated, that was effective against the well entrenched and developed defences that had appeared by very late 1914/1915.

 

The creeping barrage was, as I said, only in its infancy at the time of the start of the Somme battle - it was later used to considerable effect by the British and French forces and of course the Germans used it too in their 1918 offensives by which time it had become very sophisticated.   It was, of course, also used at El Alamein.

 

Salients had nothing at all to do with creeping barrages - they were a result of either topography (especially in the case of the German army) or where offensive success had been limited either or purpose or by design (as a preliminary to launching subsequent attacks).   And of course they existed a long time before the creeping barrage began to be employed.

 

Many of us had grandfathers and great uncles, and no doubt further 'removed' relatives who fought in the Great War and in fact one of my grandfathers lost his best mate - drowned in the mud - at Ypres during the Passchendaele ridge battle while another served in the Middle East in the Yeomanry while a great uncle was on the Somme, at Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele.  So there was plenty of experience of that war in our family - as was the case with so many others of course.

 

While we as a family did not suffer unduly from that war (the worst being a great uncle ho suffered the effects of gassing for over 40 years subsequently) we are glad to support the RBL in its activities albeit only in a very small way by giving (not just at the time of Armistice Day) and whatever cynical view one might  care to adopt of the Sainsburys advert or what it portrays the net result is that it is resulting in funds going to the RBL which it probably wouldn't otherwise get.  

 

You either like or don't lie the advert and being an advert it is clearly meant to convey a message and sell something - that is what adverts are supposed to do and to be perfectly blunt they have no effect on me at all regarding my opinion of, or willingness to shop with, a particular supermarket.  But if this one sells chocolate and that gets in money for the RBL it's a darned sight more useful than just about any other Christmassy advert on our tv screens. 

[PaulRhB]

My Grandfather fought at Galipolli, he also fought at Paschendale and on the Somme, and was eventually captured 4 months before the war ended, which may of saved his life, his company was wiped out only days after he was caught.

 

people seem to be forgetting that this is celebrating the outbreak of the war.... should we really be celebrating the fact, that because of a peace treaty written 100yrs before, made us send millions of young men to their death ?

 

 

I wouldn't call any of it celebrating the war, remembering or commemorating hopefully.

 

My own Great Grandfather survived being gassed and the war only to be killed in a pit accident soon after returning to his job. It makes me realise how lucky I am to exist when I see what he survived.

[Heinz57]

I think some people out there have nothing better to do than complain about TV, its ridiculous.

 

I think the Sainsburys advert is probably the best Christmas advert there is this year. I think it is quite a touching tribute to show that even during the horrific times of WW1 people still found happiness in Christmas.

 

As a side note, it mentions in the article that John Lewis have received a complaint about their advert because 'it might encourage people to go out and buy a (real) penguin' - seriously?

[Bernard Lamb]

SWMBO saw it this morning.

Nice film, but what has it got to do with Sainsburys?

A typical practical German view I suppose.

As an advert it has worked going by the publicity it has generated.

On an historical level, were not football matches between officers and men rather more the norm than between opposing sides?

Bernard

[bob hughes60]

My uncle Harry fought in the Great War.

As a small boy in the late 1950s and early 1960s he took a keen interest in my airplane models talking about SE5's, Albatrosses,Pfalzes etc.

He told me how he had been wounded by a sniper and answered lots of small boy questions carefully and honestly.

I really would like to know what he would have thought of the advert.

Though I must confess Uncle Harry's discussion may have necessitated a pint or two of Ansell's, M & B or Atkinsons.

But they're gone, all gone. In my opinion anything that makes my generation think and reflect is a good thing ( and the advert has certainly done that).

Bob Hughes