So Where the Bloody Hell Are You?

So Where the Bloody Hell Are You? – A thesis dealing with the reasons behind a\ncontroversial advertising campaign\nThe on-going globalization of the world leaves companies cooperating worldwide to learn the art of\ncommunicating across cultures. These companies seem to face a challenge in cooperating\ninternationally, as they are expected to embrace cultural differences as well as differences in\nlanguage- use and understanding when they are working across cultures. It seems necessary for the\ncompanies to be able to see and understand other people’s interpretations due to differences in\nbackgrounds and cultures. The Australian organisation Tourism Australia tried to succed in that\nwhen they launched their international advertising campaign ”So Where the Bloody Hell are You?”\nin 2006. This campaign was focused on proposing more foreign tourists to travel to Australia.\nThe slogan seemed not only to attract attention but was subsequently the source of heavy debate\nabout the campaign in countries all over the world. The receivers found the advertising video\nprovocative and offensive which led to several complaints and bans of the video in The United\nKingdom, Canada and The United States. Tourism Australia tried to explain the use of words in the\ncampaign as humoristic, distinctly Australian and as slang they use in everyday life. The campaign\nfailed and at last it was called it back in 2008.\nThe bans of the video and the debate concerning the campaign seem to have roots in the different\ncultural backgrounds of the receivers. Ironically, at the same time it seems like Tourism Australia\nhave not found it necessary to customize the campaign to it’s different markets and that they have\nnot considered the possibility of different interpretations of the video.\nThe main goal of this thesis is to find out which linguistic and semiotic signs have led to the critique\nof the campaign, and if differences in the receivers’ cultural backgrounds have influenced the way\nthe campaign was received. If so, how has the cultural differences effected the campaign?\nSubsequently I discuss the results of the analysed areas with focus on how language seem to be\nused and interpreted differently according to the cultural background.\nThe theoretical framework for this thesis is primarily based on critical discourse analysis and\nconsists of Norman Faircloughs’ three-dimensional model of critical discourse analysis. To complement the critical discourse analysis I use several other theorists in my search to find the\nlinguistic and pictorial elements that could have caused the offensive effect of the campaign.\nI have used Roland Barthes and Charles Sanders Pierces theories of semiotics and I have combined\nFaircloughs analysis of social practice with the cultural theory of Geert Hofstede to analyse the\nnational culture of the Anglo-Saxon countries I have selected for research. Further, the thesis also\ndraws on Danish sociologist Elisabeth Plums theory of cultural intelligence. The method used in\nthis thesis is a qualitative research method where I have focused on building a case on several\nnewspaper articles and information about the campaign.\nThe analysis of the video and the pictures show that no pictorial elements alone have caused the\ninterpretations of the campaign as offensive. However, I have found that the sentence ”So Where\nthe Bloody Hell are You?” in combination with the advertising video are the main reason for the\ncritique and the bans of the video. Subsequent to the semiotic analysis I went on to analysing the\nnational cultures of the selected countries to find out whether differences in their cultural\nbackgrounds can explain the different interpretations of the campaign. This analysis showed that\naccording to the theory of Geert Hofstede the countries do not look similar compared on three\ndimensions of national culture. Therefore, this analysis didn’t offer an explanation to the different\ninterpretations. Furthermore, I discuss why the analysis gives the impression that the four Anglo-\nSaxon countries are similar, when the case shows differences in interpretation. I discuss how the use\nof language have two dimensions; the practical and the mental dimension and how this can be an\nexplanation to why the Anglo-Saxon countries share the same language but use differently. I go on\nand discuss whether use of language is rooted in the different cultural backgrounds of the receivers,\neven though my analysis didn’t show any main measurable differences in their national culture.\nFinally, I conclude that it definitely is the language in the campaign that is interpreted as offensive\nand that it is the use of language in particular that seems to offer an explanation to the problem area\nof the thesis, as the language is deeply rooted and inseparably linked together with culture.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.