"BELOW THE BELT."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 104, 4 May 1936, Page 5

"BELOW THE BELT."

UNFAIR ADVERTISING. ELECTRICITY VERSUS GAS. PROTEST BY COUNCILLORS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, April 29. For some time past there has been on view in the display window of the Sydney County Council in George Street a curious and arresting form of advertisement. According to the "Daily Telegraph," it consisted of "an old and dirty gas stove with a representation of a dishevelled woman lighting it," and this is as fair and accurate description as could be desired.

Last week Councillor Cramer drew the attention of the council to this display, and expressed strong disapproval of it on three grounds. In the first place, the Gas Company regarded itself as being libelled by the public use of a gas stove dating back to 1911; in the second place, this method of advertising, as it involved unfair depreciation of a rival business concern, was an exhibition of bad taste and bad commercial principle; and in the third place the unkempt figure attending to her duties at the stove was "a disgrace to our women."

The protest made by Councillor Cramer received energetic support— rather to the surprise and indignation of Councillor Lloyd who, as chairman, was presumably responsible at least in part for the display. The object of Jhis "show" was, of course, to encourage the general public to purchase electric appliances from the council; but though councillors regarded this as a legitimate object they agreed that an unfair advantage had been taken of the Gas Company, and that, as advertisement, it was definitely "hitting below the belt." As Councillor McElhon said, if they wanted to emphasise the contrast between gas and electricity they should at least have put in an up-to-date gas stove and not one a quarter of a century old.

Councillor O'Dea wanted to know wliy those responsible for the display liad not put into the window some lay figures blown up by a gas explosion; and another councillor, equally facetiou3, remarked that the Gas Company would probably retaliate with a display of people suffering some form of "domestic electrocution" —a tragedy by no means uncommon here. In the end the objectors got their way, and next day the grimy and depressing little group was removed from the council's show window. People are still asking why the council, if it is absolutely resolved to compete against private firms in the sale of electrical goods and equipment, should have recourse to "unethical" methods of advertisement such as no ordinary shopkeeper would condescend to employ.