Not only that, but headline writers are having a field day:
- “Now the bloody Canadians have a problem with the ads” (The Age)
- “Bloody Canadians reject hell of an ad” (again The Age)
- “What the bloody hell is wrong with these people?” (ABC Radio, talking about the rejection to the ads in the USA)
- “Now US objects to bloody ad” (Daily Telegraph)
- “Now the bloody Yanks are offended” (Sydney Morning Herald)
- “Bloody hell, now it’s the beer” (Border Mail)
- “Have a beer on Australia? No thanks, says Canada” (Reuters)
- “Hell, now Canada has problem with ‘bloody’ ad” (ABC)
For those keeping track: the UK objected to “bloody”; Canada to “hell” and, curiously enough, to the beer; and family groups in the US complained about “bloody” (“it’s foreign to us and, therefore, offensive”), “hell” and to the girl in a bikini.
PETA is expected to complain any day now about the reference to shampooing the camels.