Cultural imperialism

[threemonkeys]

There is a long running ad on tv about host responsibility. A bloke stops his mate from drinking and driving. The thing is, way back this ad used the phrase "you're a bit pissed" to convey intoxication. But I notice that the ad had been changed so now the bloke says "you're tanked". Why the change? I know the American usage of "pissed" is different to the one we use locally. But this is a local ad, so I don't see the need to change the wording. Unless, this is another piece of language which is being colonised by american english. Unlike some, this type of language drift does not annoy me all that much in principle - languages change - but I would like it to be other than one way traffic. In this case I did think that is was a usage that was going in the other direction. You hardly ever hear "pissed" used to mean "annoyed" on american tv any more. In fact I think you are more likely to hear "pissed off". So, I wonder what is going on here with this change to the ad - am I wrong about this word?

Comments

[editormum.livejournal.com]

Possibly it's more of a censorship issue? Tanked is less offensive than pissed. Yes, tanked is Americanism, but it conveys the same message with less offense. Possibly.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. Maybe somebody complained. I didn't even consider that because the usage in the ad seemed pretty inoffensive to me and appropriate in the context of a few blokes drinking beer at a barbecue. If Toyota can say "bugger" a dozen times in an ad then I don't see the problem with this.