ASA Adjudications Snapshot - November 2011

This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA adjudications from November and a summary of the key issues considered in those adjudications.

A number of the adjudications where complaints were upheld relate to adverts on posters featuring images of a sexual nature. The impact of the Bailey Review can clearly be seen in relation to these adjudications.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA adjudications from November and a summary of the key issues considered in those adjudications.

A number of the adjudications where complaints were upheld relate to adverts on posters featuring images of a sexual nature. The impact of the Bailey Review can clearly be seen in relation to these adjudications.

ADJUDICATIONS

COSMETICS

1. Unilever UK Ltd, 23 November 2011 This adjudication concerned a poster for Lynx shower gel featuring a picture of a young woman standing under an outdoor shower on a beach wearing a bikini with the model clasping the undone bikini top to her chest. The text on the advert above a large bottle of the product stated "The cleaner you are the dirtier you get" and text at the bottom of the advert stated "Visit Facebook.com/lynxeffect and get dirty this summer".

Complaint/Decision

The ASA received a total of 113 complaints about this advert. The complainants challenged the advert on the following grounds: 1) whether the advert was offensive because it was sexually suggestive, provocative, indecent, glamorised casual sex and because it objectified women; 2) whether it was irresponsible because it was inappropriate for public display, where it could be seen by children; and 3) whether it was irresponsible because it promoted promiscuity. The ASA upheld the complaints in relation to the first two complaints, but not the third. Whilst the ASA considered that the poster was not graphic or indecent, they considered that the suggestive text particularly placed next to the image of the women with the unfastened bikini was clearly intended to imply that using the Lynx product "would lead to more uninhibited sexual behaviour". The ASA therefore considered that the poster objectified women because consumers to make a link between purchasing the product and sex with women. The ASA also considered that the combination of the image, the suggestive text and the fact that the advert was in a poster form on public display was likely to offend many members of the public, particularly those accompanied by children. The ASA concluded that the poster was therefore likely to cause serious or widespread offence. For the same reasons, despite the efforts made by Clear Channel to limit the locations of the advert (the poster was not displayed near any schools to minimise the exposure to children; in areas in which there was a majority ethnic population or those areas near to religious places of worship, to reduce any cultural or religious sensitivities; or in areas in which they had received complaints regarding ads before) the ASA considered that the advert was not suitable for display in places where it might be seen by children. The ASA was particularly concerned that a number of the complaints received had been from complainants who had had the adverts pointed out to them by their young children, or had been asked by them to explain the meaning of the text. However, despite receiving 12 complaints on the issue, the ASA did not consider that the advert was irresponsible in promoting promiscuity because it did not feature a sex scene or suggest that unprotected sex/ sex with multiple partners was desirable. The billboard owners, CBS Outdoor, had sought a view from CAP Copy Advice prior to displaying the adverts. There was some discrepancy as to the content of this advice. Unilever submitted that it understood that CAP Copy Advice had advocated caution but not given a definitive comment either way and in light of that advice Unilever had concluded that the poster was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. The ASA in the adjudication said that CAP Copy Advice had told CBS that it was likely that the poster would generate complaints which would be passed onto the ASA investigations team. They had been informed that the combination of the image and the tagline in an untargeted medium were quite likely to be problematic. The ASA had previously considered two TV adverts from the same campaign which it had found did not warrant investigation. However, the previous adjudication had been in part due to the fact that those adverts had been subject to viewing restrictions which meant that children were less likely to see them. In contrast posters are an untargeted medium and likely to be seen by a variety of age groups. The ASA considered that this advert should be considered on its own merits and outside the context of the wider campaign. Potentially suggestive or sexual advertising in outdoor sites are particularly sensitive areas following the Bailey Review and the establishment of the Advertising Association's ParentPort (insert link to www.parentport.org.uk). In response, the ASA altered its approach to this type of outdoor advertising and published guidelines as to what is likely to be acceptable and what is likely to be more problematic. As ever with adverts which are potentially offensive, targeting is key. Marketers should consider carefully the medium used when creating adverts. What may be acceptable in one medium could be deemed inappropriate in others. 2. Unilever UK Ltd, 23 November 2011 This adjudication concerned a campaign related to the Unilever Lynx advert above, and concerned five internet display adverts (on Yahoo!, Hotmail, Rotten Tomatoes, Anorak and Spotify) for Lynx Dry Full Control deodorant. Each of the adverts showed Lucy Pinder, carrying out various activities including getting dressed, washing a car, eating ice cream and standing under a washing line. Each scene showed her wearing outfits that revealed her cleavage. Each of the adverts included text such as "Can she make you lose control? Put the premature perspiration to the test" or "What will she do to make you lose control?", "Lucy Pinder [blank]ing makes me prematurely perspire" and "Play with Lucy".

Complaint/Decision

Ten complainants challenged whether the adverts were offensive because they were sexually provocative and degrading to women and whether the adverts were irresponsible because they were inappropriately located on sites that could be viewed by children. The complaints about the adverts being offensive were all upheld. Although the ASA accepted Unilever's argument that the adverts were intended to be tongue-in-cheek, it considered that the various activities carried out by Ms Pinder were presented in a sexually provocative way and were likely to be seen as objectifying women. The suggestive text that accompanied the images were also likely to be seen as objectifying women and degrading to them and so the adverts were likely to cause offence. In consideration of the targeting of the adverts, in relation to the adverts as placed on the Rotten Tomatoes and Anorak sites, the ASA noted that it had not been provided with evidence to demonstrate that the proportion of users of these sites were over 16. In addition, because they understood that these sites were not protected by age verification procedures or similar targeting, the ASA considered that the adverts could be viewed by a wider audience. Because the ASA considered the adverts to be unsuitable and could be seen by children, the complaints that the adverts were irresponsible in this respect were upheld. However, in relation to the adverts that were placed on Hotmail, Yahoo! and Spotify, the ASA noted that Hotmail targeted the adverts at males between 16 and 25 and that 94% of Hotmail users were over 15 and 91% over 18. It was also noted that Yahoo! had targeted the adverts at males over the age of 18. In relation to Spotify, the advert was targeted to users over 16 and, upon registering, Spotify users had to verify their age. As a result of these controls, and despite the concern that the adverts were likely to cause offence, the ASA considered that the adverts as placed on these websites were unlikely to be seen by those under the age of 16 and therefore concluded that they were not irresponsible on those grounds. As with the previous adjudication, this adjudication demonstrates the significance of targeting adverts to the appropriate demographic. The age verification procedures and targeting capabilities of online platforms must be sufficiently researched by a marketer to ensure all reasonable steps are taken to protect children. However, the content of this advert was still considered to be offensive, regardless of where it was screened. It is also interesting to note that Unilever have used the adverse adjudication to gain further publicity for the brand. In response, they issued a tongue-in-cheek video featuring Lucy Pinder fully clothed wearing a long sleeved woolly jumper, returning the props used in the original advert, including cheerleader pom poms and a monkey toy. Ms Pinder apologises for any offence caused by the online adverts whilst a breaking news style ticker tape runs across the bottom stating: "Lynx apologises for any offence caused". 3. L'Oreal (UK) Ltd t/a Lancôme Paris, 23 November 2011 This adjudication concerned a magazine advert for mascara featuring three models and text stating "Lancôme Paris Dreaming of a Doll Lash effect? Hypnose Doll Eyes Doll Lash Effect Mascara – Wide-Eyed Look..."

Complaint/Decision

A member of the public and Jo Swinson MP, who has been significantly involved in a campaign against misleading advertising images for cosmetics and recently had two complaints upheld against L'Oreal brands Lancôme and Maybelline [insert link to ASA Snapshot July 2011], challenged whether the advert was misleading because, in their...