FS experts respond to DeadHappy ad

The ad's clearly been designed to create a furore and nothing else. It's a shame the marketeers couldn't come up with something decent and give financial services a good name. It's not big and it's not clever. It's just a bit shit.

I thought twice before commenting as another article will possibly give Dead Happy more of the publicity they seem desperate to get. However, hopefully, not all publicity is good and this may deter them from future tasteless advertising. I used to find their adverts funny and a clever attempt to engage people in an important issue, however, they are now going too far and doing more harm than good. They might also want to think about cutting out the dishonest advertising they indulge in. There is another ad currently being run by them that misleadingly gives the impression they provide cover for people with mental health issues that most other insurers don't, which is nothing short of an out and out lie. DeadCrappy would be a more fitting name.

DeadHappy are disgraceful. That so-called industry disrupters feel they can use such cold and shortsighted "banter" to onboard clients in an age where the majority of the industry is approaching the market with kindness leaves a terrible taste in the mouth. But when companies are this devoid of humanity and compassion and put a marketing spin over the sensitivities of the families affected by this heinous individual, why would anyone use them? How on earth can you trust a company with something as personal as arranging funds for your loved ones in the event of your death if they have no thoughts for the victims, or their families, of Harold Shipman?

I mean, what sane marketing exec signs off on something like this? There's controversy and there's downright wrong, and this is the latter I'm afraid. I can take a joke with the best of them but for this to go live is crazy. However, I'm guessing they knew what the response would likely be, and it has us all talking about them as a firm. What's that old saying again?

I appreciate marketing has to be creative nowadays to get traction, in a world where we have thousands of companies shouting for our attention. However, I think there are ways and means of doing this without trying so hard to cause offense. The team that put this together will have known how close to the bone this is, and that it would cause a reaction. While some people will find this funny, I think they are setting themselves up as a jokey company within the industry, which will not appeal to everyone, and when it comes to protecting their families, clients usually want this to be taken seriously. I think they are going too far with their message and it seems controversy is being used to keep them in the limelight, rather than focusing on how they are actually helping clients.

There are a few creative agencies out there now making a name for themselves by producing edgy campaigns to create 'talkability'. Talkability is what ads are all about. There is a line to be drawn between producing work that's not for everyone but that will create chatter, and what's beyond acceptable limits of taste though. These guys just overstepped that line.

I do wonder what the underwriter, Shepherds Friendly, thinks about this. Would they run the same ad campaign themselves? If not, why not? They're a mutual organisation established almost 200 years ago. You'd think they'd champion the same values as other mutual organisations, which tend to have a sense of community. They say "We’re a society that cares, always putting our members first. We never compromise on our moral standards. We honour our commitments, always behave responsibly and act in good faith. We don’t just look after our community of members – we support great causes in the wider community." Community, you know, that thing Shipman ripped apart with his monstrous actions. A strange thing to allow the marketing brand selling your product to use for some PR.

I may possess a dark sense of humor, the nicest people generally do, but there is a line when it comes to what's in good taste as an ad and even I would say this steps pretty far over it. Is it ballsy? Sure. Is it wise? Probably not.

This effort by the DeadHappy team is clumsy but I broadly agree with the sentiment. They are trying to attract their own breed of customers who will be drawn in by their dark marketing, and when boiled down to its bare bones, they are trying to close the huge protection gap we have in the UK. Yes, this one is a step too far as there are real victims and families here, but there are plenty of life insurance adverts over the years showing car crashes, heart attacks and cancer patients. We are in danger of being so vanilla that we'll eat ourselves. We in the industry need to tread a fine line between disturbance, which the FCA will not countenance, and painting enough of a picture to allow the client to consider the consequences of inaction. I hope therefore there is a proportionate response here and minimal hysteria.

This is really appalling and tasteless. Shipman's crimes are not that long ago, his victims' close families are still alive and could well see this advert, which would be horrendous for them. Seeing the murder of their loved ones trivialised to sell insurance. How someone signed this off and felt it was the right image for their business, not to mention the wider insurance industry, is beyond me.

The bleak reality in a world where we are bombarded with ads is that shock value is often the easiest way to be seen amongst the fog. Will it be distasteful and offensive to many? Yes, but at the same time it will bring huge attention to their brand, which is what they are trying to achieve. With a younger demographic who spend their life sharing memes on social media, this type of marketing is only going to increase.

I am evangelical about life cover and protection in the event of ill health. I have personal experience of it, as I was widowed in 2010 when my youngest child was just five years old. So when I speak to my clients I don't hold back. They need to know exactly what the challenges are for them and their family following a death or diagnosis of something horrible. So I don't actually feel that too much is off limits if it shakes parents into cutting back on the Sky or Deliveroo in order to protect themselves, if that's what it takes. However, this company really has crossed the line. Again.

This is just plain wrong. Trivialising and profiteering off tragedy, good going Dead Happy. I hope, they get hauled over the coals for this. Better yet, customers leave them in droves.

The marketing team at DeadHappy could be dead sad tomorrow if they walk into a p45 for this inappropriate advert.

What is wrong with people? I know any publicity is good publicity, but it just shows what utter heartless fraggles they are. Yes, it's been a few years, but I'm sure it's still quite sore for the families of those affected by Shipman. I am never the type of person to hope a business goes under, but their publicity team should be let go. Back to the playground where they were found.

The DeadHappy advert is vile, distasteful, abhorrent and vulgar. Did they take a leaf out of Jeremy Clarkson's attack on Meghan Markle? There is no place in society for this type of advertisement. Yes, I agree the conversation about protection needs to be impactful to make the target audience think, but this has crossed all boundaries. Did no one at DeadHappy think for a second about the hurt and pain they would cause the victims' families? The company need to be investigated by the FCA, Advertising Standards Agency and Ofcom. They should not be able to continue trading and have all authorisations removed, effective immediately.