I agree we should be putting our indigenous people front and centre of our commercials. It would feel lest scummy if we could do that a bit more with our overall culture. The article uses NZ as an example, but they’re considerably further along than we are when it comes indigenous issues (IMO).

I’m not so sure about the rest of it though. In the '80s we tried to market Australia as sophisticated and modern, and it was a flop. Tourists visit countries because of romantic ideals, not because ads are truthful. What would be a more a appealing ad for Paris?

A) Thriving tech hubs and business centres B) Cycling through the Marais with a baguette and a bottle of champaign (with not another tourist in sight)

Likewise, tourists aren’t visiting Australia because they want to embrace the multicultural suburbs in our larger cities. They want to see what they can’t see at home. If we were making ads trying to get skilled migration, then sure–sell the cities. But for tourism, its BBQs on deserted beaches.

My guess is that they’re trying to appeal to Americans, who still identify Australia with crocodile Dundee and “shrimp on the barbie”.

BTW I’m a middle age Australian and I’ve been to hundreds of barbeques - have seen prawns barbequed maybe twice in my life. So I don’t even know what the original ads were taking about, a cultural staple that almost never happens?

They missed the opportunity to play some Men at Work in the background

The headline for the commercial, which features Australians drinking and frolicking on the beach, is “So where the bloody hell are you?”.

As a result, the word “bloody” will be cut for the advert when shown on UK TV, according to Tourism Australia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4789650.stm

i knew the brits were censor heavy but wow

All those newer ads are so cringe, even the ironic fourth-wall-breaking superbowl one. The Hogan ad was the only one that felt authentic.