Major expectations about sporting success are endemic to South African society. South Africans demand trophies, victories and continuous domination in rugby, cricket, soccer and golf. There is never any real acceptance of the ebb and flow of sporting competition.
The question that has been asked is whether the ad industry is playing on existing emotion or stoking the fires of nationalistic sporting fervour.
The answer is unobtainable just like the chicken and egg debate or whether violence in movies precedes violence in society or vice versa.
What is more pertinent to the current discussion is whether this moaning would have happened if South Africa had gone on to win the cup. Of course it wouldn't so the point is that it is very easy to bite the hand that feeds you.
Cricket benefits on many different levels from advertising revenue. But advertisers and, more importantly, ad agencies target the cricket consumer not the national cricket team.
If national cricket team management decided that the impact on their team was going to affect their performance then they could have instituted a media blackout.
The adverts that did put themselves on the line for the South African cricket side included MTN, Standard Bank and SAA but the Castle lager ad has overstayed its welcome. Sticking around after the Proteas were history was a waste of time and money.
As far as the rest of the advertising in this world cup goes I am glad that I have not gone to a single live game. Drinking Coca Cola and watching replays with the excellent commentary and analysis from the likes of Ian Botham and Bob Willis has more than made up for the 'there' vibe.
The ICC has opened a 'pandora's box'. When an advertiser has to ban a competitor it simply means that they haven't achieved their own campaign targets.
