Advertising News

A TV ad for Marmite with a tongue-in-cheek of animal neglect has prompted more than 250 complaints to the advert censor ASA.

The TV ad shot in reality TV style follows a team parodying animal welfare officers who visit houses and save and rehome jars of Marmite that have been neglected by their owners.

The Advertising Standards Authority received more than 250 complaints that it trivialises the work of animal welfare organisations. Complainants said that the ad was offensive and in poor taste .

A spokeswoman for Marmite said:

We believe we have created an unmistakably Marmite ad -- people will either love it or hate it and they certainly won't forget it. We hope that everyone will watch and enjoy this commercial in the lighthearted way it was intended.

Update: Acquitted

23rd August  2013. See  article from  dailymail.co.uk

Marmite's animal cruelty commercial will not be investigated by the advert censor. It drew 504 complaints from viewers who claimed it trivialised the work of child and animal welfare agencies.

The complaints led to Marmite's owner Unilever donating £18,000 to the RSPCA.

The Advertising Standards Authority said:

Most [viewers] would recognise the ads were a spoof.

They... did not trivialise issues of abuse or denigrate the work of child and animal protection services.

The Australian Christian Lobby has predictably welcomed the decision by the Melbourne City Council to push for the banning of ads that supposedly 'sexualise' women.

ACL spokesprat Wendy Francis bleated that the initiative is a much-needed step towards dealing with the 'objectification' of women in outdoor advertising.

ACL congratulates Lord Mayor Robert Doyle for his stand against offensive and sexist imagery in Melbourne's public spaces.

This sets an example for other city councils around Australia to crack-down on sexualised advertising that threatens our children's innocence and promotes negative representations of women and girls,.

Apart from advocating for a ban on advertising that sexualises and objectifies women, the Council will also encourage the community to report such material. The plan also includes creating special safety zones for women in the inner city with CCTV surveillance, strong lighting and security patrols.

Claims on the home page of www.brewdog.com, a brewery website, stated BrewDog is a post Punk apocalyptic mother fu*ker of a craft brewery. Say goodbye to the corporate beer whores crazy for power and world domination ... Ride toward anarchy and caramel craziness. Let the sharp bitter finish rip you straight to the tits. Save up for a Luger, and drill the bastards .

An internet user challenged whether the language used in the ad was likely to cause serious offence.

BrewDog said they had removed the claims from their website, but did not provide a substantive response to our enquiries.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The ASA noted the asterisk used in mother fu*ker , but considered its inclusion did not obscure the intended meaning and it was still clear that it represented a swear word, one generally regarded as highly offensive and unlikely to be acceptable in marketing communications. We considered that the other language used on the page, such as corporate beer whores , rip you straight to the tits and Save up for a Luger and drill the bastards , was also likely to cause serious offence to some people.

Given the general tone of the page, and in particular the use of mother fu*ker , we considered the language used was gratuitous and concluded that the page was likely to cause serious offence to some visitors to the website page.

The claims breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

We told BrewDog to take care to avoid causing serious offence in the future. We referred the matter to CAP's Compliance team.

Update: Motherfu*king brewery shows bottle

26th July 2013. See  article from  heraldscotland.com

BrewDog bottle!

An independent brewery is set to ignore a ban for strong language ludicrously deemed likely to cause serious offence by the advert censor.

The brewery has announced that it will ignore the ASA ruling and will put the statement back on the website. BrewDog co-founder James Watt said:

We actually just took down the statement on our website to make room for the equity for punks stuff. Soon, we will be putting the statement back on our website.

We believe in freedom of speech and artistic expression. We don't believe in mindless censorship.

As for the ASA - those mother f*ckers don't have any jurisdiction over us anyway.

The ASA has said it is monitoring the situation but a spokesman said it would be disappointing if BrewDog was considering putting the statement back online.

A YouTube ad for a car, entitled Two Unsuspecting Guys Take the Renault Clio for a Test Drive featured hidden camera footage of two men taking a car for a test drive around London. They reached a junction and pressed a button on the dashboard which read Va Va Voom . A screen, which featured a Parisian scene, was moved into position in front of the car and a number of actors and props appeared, including a man on a scooter, a couple at a cafe' table and a market stall. A group of women then walked in front of the car, wearing burlesque style lingerie and danced in a line in front of the car before walking towards it and gyrating and dancing around it. One woman blew a kiss to the driver. The women then walked away in unison and the screen was moved away to reveal a billboard poster which read Reignite your Va Va Voom . Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive, because she felt it objectified women.

Renault UK Ltd (Renault) said the video had only been made available on YouTube and was generally intended to be viewed by a younger adult audience than mainstream TV channels. They said the video was a humorous parody with a theme of French culture and it therefore featured various iconic scenes that were associated with Paris, including the Eiffel Tower and a pavement cafe. They said the women who danced around the vehicle were a reference to the Moulin Rouge and that they were intended to be taken as seriously as the other iconic images in the ad. They felt they were dressed in typical Parisian style and that the choreography was a rhythmical send up of the burlesque style, rather than overtly sexual. They advised that the video had been viewed over three million times and they were unaware of any other complaints.

YouTube said the ad did not violate their Community Guidelines or Advertising Policies, but that it was the advertiser's responsibility to ensure that any ad complied with the CAP Code and was targeted appropriately.

ASA Assessment: Complaint Upheld

The ASA noted that Renault felt the female dancers were just one of the iconic Parisian scenes featured in the ad, which was intended to be a light-hearted parody. However, we considered that the length of the scene in question, along with the change in the music and the use of slow motion shots, meant it had a different tone to the rest of the ad. We accepted that the Moulin Rouge was associated with Paris and that a scene that referenced it could therefore have some relevance to the theme of the ad, if not to the product itself. However, we were concerned that the ad featured a number of shots of the women's breasts and bottoms, in which their heads were obscured, and which we considered invited viewers to view the women as sexual objects. We further considered that the choreography, dress and facial expressions of the dancers were sexually provocative and that the overall impression given was not necessarily that of a parody of a cabaret show such as the Moulin Rouge, particularly as the women were seen to approach the car and gyrate around it, rather than merely performing in front of it. We considered that the ad objectified the dancers by portraying them as sexual objects and that it was therefore likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

The ad breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence).

Australian billboards showing a pregnant woman having a lesbian has been cleared by the advertising censor after complaints that it had somehow sexualised children .

The Advertising Standards Bureau has thrown out both complaints against the ad promoting gay marriage. The reasons for the decision have yet to be published.

The billboards, now on display in Brisbane, show a pregnant woman with the slogan, Congratulations, you're having a lesbian .

One complainant claimed the ad is illegal as it involves the sexualisation of children . Another complained that the billboard could make pregnant woman uneasy . If science can prove one is having a lesbian/homosexual should one abort?

The campaign's organiser, Shelley Argent, said the real child abuse was to reject a child on the grounds of sexuality. The campaign's theme is that any child can be born gay.

A video ad, for the Lynx Manwasher Shower Tool , was shown on Gym TV and on YouTube:

The ad, which was in the style of a product presentation filmed with a live audience, featured two female characters: Stephanie De Mornay and Amber James . Stephanie introduced Amber and asked, What have you got for us today, Amber? Amber responded, Balls. Nobody wants to play with them when they're dirty. That's why you have to keep your balls clean. The problem is soap just isn't enough. She was shown unsuccessfully cleaning a football. Stephanie asked, Well, how can guys clean their balls properly so they're more enjoyable to play with? Amber replied, Well finally there's a tool that can really get the job done. The Lynx Manwasher. Cleans your balls. She held up a bottle of Lynx shower gel and a Manwasher . The audience, including a couple of men who held rugby balls, were shown clapping and cheering...

1. Two complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and unsuitable for display where it might be viewed by children.

2. One complainant challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, because they believed the implication that the black character had bigger balls than the white characters played on racial stereotypes.

ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that very young children would be unlikely to be aware of the slang meaning of the term balls , but we considered that older children would be likely to know and understand that slang meaning, particularly in the context of an ad which discussed the use of a Manwasher . Nonetheless, we noted the actions Unilever had taken to specifically target the ad to their target demographic of men aged between 16 and 34, and noted we had not received any complaints that the ad had been seen by children. We concluded the ad had been appropriately targeted and was not, therefore, irresponsible.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising), but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted Unilever's view that the ad did not create the impression that the size of the sports balls was representative of the size of the testicles of the men in the audience, or that the skin colour of the men was relevant. However, we considered that because the premise of the ad was based on the double entendre of the word balls , viewers would draw connections between characteristics of the men and the balls they were holding for comedic effect. For example, at the beginning of the ad, when Amber referred to one man's golf balls as small balls , his reaction was to look concerned and uncertain.

We noted the audience included only one black man, and we considered that by having him present the large net of footballs for cleaning in contrast to the smaller balls presented by the other men, the ad played on racial stereotypes. We considered it was therefore likely that some viewers would find the ad distasteful on that basis. However, we noted the ad had been targeted at men aged between 16 and 34 and we concluded that, on balance, it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence amongst that audience.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and Offence), but did not find it in breach.

The billboard for season 12 of Heidi Klum's ever-popular Project Runway has been banned in LA.

The ad for the TV show's Fashion Reigns campaign shows Klum and Tim Gunn in royal attire, lording over a group of naked, toned models.

The photo was set to run on billboards, posters, websites, bus shelters and in magazines, but LA has required that a version with underwear run in its place.

New York City, on the other hand, is comfortable running the advert unspoilt by underwear.

A New Zealand forklift company's supposedly offensive ads on some of its vans will not be pulled, despite a second complaint about them being upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The advertisement for used forklifts featuring a scantily clad woman, with the catchline

You know you're not the first ... But does that really matter?

In February, it was asked to remove a similar advertisement after a complaint was upheld by the ASA.

The latest complainants claimed the ads were shockingly denigrating of women, objectifying them as sex objects . The ASA complaints board found the advert was a gratuitous objectification of the woman, which was likely to cause serious and widespread offence on the grounds of gender.

However ASA decisions are not legally enforceable. The self-governing agency can only ask that advertisements be withdrawn.

Independent Forklifts general manager Merv Dore said that the signs on the backs of the three vans would stay until it was time to replace them.

They can uphold them (ASA decisions) forever, we have got an advertising campaign and will change the ads when we change them. The ASA don't have any authority. After the first complaint we received calls of support from all over the country.

A few easily offended TV viewers are 'outraged' over the ad for Confused.com, which first aired on July 1.

The company's mascot BRIAN the Robot is shown interrupting a man parked in a car in a remote beauty spot.

As he knocks on the window, a woman's head pops up as if from his lap and the couple turn to the camera looking flustered.

'Shocked' fans took to the inevitable twitter adn whinged:

Why have Confused.com made an advert where two people are clearly dogging?

Why bring dogging or oral sex into an insurance advert?

The UK advert censor said it has received 20 complaints about the ad. ASA spokesman Matt Wilson said:

The general nature of the complaints is that the ad is offensive and distasteful because it is suggestive of sexual activity, is degrading to women and inappropriate for children to see.

A spokesman for Confused.com light heartedly told The Sun:

The woman is startled as she had been tying her shoelace and didn't see BRIAN approach the car.

A video advert for a special variety of Spanish cherries has been pulled after whinges it was sexist and vulgar .

The video was released to coincide with the seventh international cherry symposium in the town of Plasencia.

In the video for the smaller, crunchier, sweeter Picota del Jerte variety of cherries, advertisers played on some light hearted double entendre. Talking about cherries, they say that size does matter , before going on to say the smaller the better! With a backdrop of silly music, the cherry commercial then claims the older, the tastier before showing a picture of women's breasts. This is followed up by the claim that the sweetest, smoothest and meatiest are the fresh ones .

But unions and socialist PSOE politicians from the Extremadura region got all easily offended.

The Secretary for 'Equality' for the PSOE in Extremadura Nelida Martin whinged:

We are not going to consent to women's bodies being using as advertising and as objects of desire in a commercial lacking in creativity.

The socialists noted that Spain's [blatantly unequal] advertising laws prohibit any commercial which injure the dignity of women, or which put in danger the rights of the constitution, especially when it comes to infancy, childhood and women .

Major Spanish union the CCOO whined that the commercial was denigrating to women and used sexist and vulgar stereotypes .

In response, the cherry growers withdrew the advertisement from its website saying they had never intended to offend and aggravate anyone and that they were deeply sorry for any hurt they had caused.