ASA Watch

An outdoor poster ad for Not Just Cooling, an air conditioning company, seen in July 2019, featured a woman in denim shorts, a white T-shirt and sunglasses. Large text adjacent to the image stated, YOUR WIFE IS HOT! alongside the claim Better get the air conditioning fixed.

Twenty five complainants, who claimed the ad was sexist and objectified women, challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible.

Not Just Cooling Ltd said that the tagline, YOUR WIFE IS HOT was relevant to the nature of their business. They did not believe that the tagline was inappropriate and added that the woman was tastefully dressed.

ASA Assessment: Complains upheld

The ASA noted that the ad depicted a woman wearing summer clothing alongside the tagline, YOUR WIFE IS HOT. We acknowledged that the choice of image and tagline was broadly relevant to the advertised product which would predominately be used in summer when an individual was too hot, and therefore in need of air conditioning. Although we acknowledged that the use of the woman and tagline would be understood as a double entendre on the women being both literally hot and also attractive, we considered that it was likely to be viewed as demeaning towards women. While some consumers might appreciate that the use of the double entendre was comical in tone, we considered that the ad had the effect of objectifying women and by commenting on a woman's physical appearance to draw attention to the ad. In light of those factors, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some consumers and was socially irresponsible.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Not Just Cooling Ltd to ensure their advertising was socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.

An ad for PETA displayed on the side of buses, seen in February 2019, included the text Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes. Wool is just as cruel as fur. GO WOOL-FREE THIS WINTER PeTA. Beside the text was an image of a woman with the neck of her jumper pulled over her face.

Ten complainants, who believed that sheep needed to be shorn for health reasons and therefore wool should not be compared to fur, challenged whether the claim wool is just as cruel as fur was misleading and could be substantiated.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA considered that the general public were aware that in the fur industry animals were often kept in poor conditions and were killed for their fur, and that they would interpret the ad's reference to cruelty in that context. We considered that people who saw the ad would therefore understand the claim wool is just as cruel as fur to refer generally to the conditions in which sheep were kept and the effects on sheep of the methods used to obtain their wool. We considered that although the public would recognise the ad was from an animal rights organisation and as such that the claim would represent its views, it was presented as a factual claim and a direct comparison between the two industries.

In terms of wool production in the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Code of Recommendations for the welfare of livestock had specific guidelines on the shearing process to ensure they were adhering to the standards of animal welfare which was required by law. Those guidelines stated that every mature sheep should have its fleece removed at least once a year by experienced and competent trained shearers who should take care in ensuring that the sheep's skin was not cut. We considered that demonstrated that the main method of obtaining wool from sheep by shearing would not be regarded by consumers as being cruel.

The Code of Recommendations and additional guidance also included specific provisions for the health, treatment, transportation and living conditions that sheep should be kept in for the overall benefit of their welfare. We considered this demonstrated that in the UK, there were standards to prevent cruelty to sheep.

We considered people who saw the ad would interpret the claim wool is just as cruel as fur as equating the conditions in which sheep were kept and the methods by which wool was obtained with the conditions and methods used in the fur industry. However, sheep were not killed for their wool as animals were in the fur industry and there were standards in place relating to their general welfare including relating to the shearing process. We therefore concluded on that basis that the claim was misleading and in breach of the Code.

The ad must not appear in its current form. We told PETA not to use the claim wool is just as cruel as fur in future.

A TV ad for the Volkswagen eGolf, seen on 14 June 2019, opened with a shot of a woman and a man in a tent. The woman was asleep and the man switched off the light and closed the tent, which was shown to be fixed to a sheer cliff face. The following scene depicted two male astronauts floating in a space ship. Text stated When we learn to adapt. The next scene showed a male para-athlete with a prosthetic leg doing the long jump. Text stated we can achieve anything. The final scene showed a woman sitting on a bench next to a pram. A Volkswagen eGolf passed by quietly. The woman was shown looking up from her book. Text stated The Golf is electric. The 100% electric eGolf. Issue

Three complainants, who believed that the ad perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes by showing men engaged in adventurous activities in contrast to a woman in a care-giving role, challenged whether it breached the Code.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The first scene of the ad showed both a man and a woman in a tent, panning out to show that it was fixed to the side of a cliff and therefore implying that they had both climbed up the steep rock face. However, the woman was shown sleeping, by contrast with the man in the scene. Furthermore, due to the short duration of the shot and its focus on the movement of the man, it was likely that many viewers would not pick up on the fact that it featured a woman, as was the case with the complainants.

The ad then showed two male astronauts carrying out tasks in space and a male para-athlete doing the long jump. We considered that viewers would be likely to see the activities depicted as extraordinary and adventurous -- scientific and career-based in the case of the astronauts and physical in the case of the athlete. That impression was reinforced by the claim When we learn to adapt, we can achieve anything. While we noted that a third astronaut appeared in the background, the image was very brief and not prominent. We considered that many viewers would not notice the presence of a third person, and if they did, the image was insufficiently clear to distinguish their gender.

The first two scenes both more prominently featured male characters. While the majority of the ad was focussed on a theme of adapting to difficult circumstances and achievement, the final scene showed a woman sitting on a bench and reading, with a pram by her side. We acknowledged that becoming a parent was a life changing experience that required significant adaptation, but taking care of children was a role that was stereotypically associated with women.

In context, the final scene (the only one that featured the product) gave the impression that the scenario had been used to illustrate the adaptation and resulting characteristic of the car -- so quiet that it did not wake the baby or register with the mother -- rather than as a further representation of achievement, particularly as the setting was relatively mundane compared to the other scenarios.

Taking into account the overall impression of the ad, we considered that viewers were likely to focus on the occupations of the characters featured in the ad and observe a direct contrast between how the male and female characters were depicted. By juxtaposing images of men in extraordinary environments and carrying out adventurous activities with women who appeared passive or engaged in a stereotypical care-giving role, we considered that the ad directly contrasted stereotypical male and female roles and characteristics in a manner that gave the impression that they were exclusively associated with one gender.

We concluded that the ad presented gender stereotypes in way that was likely to cause harm and therefore breached the Code.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Volkswagen Group UK Ltd to ensure their advertising did not present gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm, including by directly contrasting male and female roles and characteristics in a way that implied they were uniquely associated with one gender.

Offsite Comment: Stereotypically Stupid: The ASA's Latest Slice Of Lunacy

  19th August 2019. See article from reprobatepress.com

Offsite Comment: Feminists think stereotypes are only bad when other people use them

23rd August 2019. See article from spiked-online.com by Jon Holbrook

 

A TV ad and video on demand (VOD) ad for the soft cheese, Philadelphia:

a. The TV ad, seen on 14 June 2019, featured a woman passing a baby to a man who then held the baby in his arms. Another man appeared carrying a baby in a car seat. The first man said New dad, too? and the second man nodded. The scene was revealed to be a restaurant with a conveyor belt serving buffet food. The men chatted, saying Wow, look at this lunch, Yeah, hard to choose and This looks good, whilst a sitting baby and a car seat were seen on the moving conveyor belt, as the men were distracted by selecting and eating their lunch. The first man then noticed his baby had gone around the conveyor belt, said errr and argh!, and moved across the room to pick the baby up. The second man picked the baby in the car seat off of the conveyor belt, and one of the men said Let's not tell mum.

b. The VOD ad, seen on the ITV Hub, on 18 June 2019, featured the same content.

The complainants, who believed the ad perpetuated a harmful stereotype by suggesting that men were incapable of caring for children and would place them at risk as a result of their incompetence, challenged whether the ads were in breach of the Code.

Rather than the ads depicting a harmful stereotype, Clearcast thought the ads depicted an example of a momentary lapse in concentration by somewhat overwhelmed and tired new parents which was quickly realized and rectified. They did not think the ads showed the new fathers being unable to look after the babies properly because of their gender, but instead it was established early on that they were new dads and unused to dealing with young children. They did not believe the ads were a representation of all fathers and did not believe it suggested that the fathers in the ads, or fathers more generally, were incapable of parenting.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The CAP and BCAP Code stated Advertisements must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence. The joint CAP and BCAP guidance said that ads may feature people undertaking gender-stereotypical roles, but they should take care to avoid suggesting that stereotypical roles or characteristics were always uniquely associated with one gender. The guidance provided examples which were likely to be unacceptable, which included An ad that depicts a man or a woman failing to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g. a man's inability to change nappies; a woman's inability to park a car.

We considered the scenario represented two new fathers in sole charge of their children, who both became distracted when choosing their lunch and subsequently failed to notice when the children were carried away on a conveyor belt. We acknowledged the action was intended to be light-hearted and comical and there was no sense that the children were in danger. We considered, however, that the men were portrayed as somewhat hapless and inattentive, which resulted in them being unable to care for the children effectively.

We recognised that the ad depicted new parents and could therefore be seen as a characterisation of new parents as inexperienced and learning how to adapt to parenthood. We also recognised that, regardless of their gender, it was common for parents to ask their children (often jokingly) not to tell their other parent about something that had happened. However, in combination with the opening scene in which one of the babies was handed over by the mother to the father, and the final scene in which one of the fathers said Let's not tell mum, we considered the ad relied on the stereotype that men were unable to care for children as well as women and implied that the fathers had failed to look after the children properly because of their gender.

We also considered that the narrative and humour in the ad derived from the use of the gender stereotype. We did not consider that the use of humour in the ad mitigated the effect of the harmful stereotype; indeed it was central to it, because the humour derived from the audiences' familiarity with the gender stereotype being portrayed.

We therefore concluded that the ad perpetuated a harmful stereotype, namely that men were ineffective at childcare, and was in breach of the Code.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Mondelez Ltd to ensure their advertising did not perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes, including suggesting that stereotypical roles or characteristics were always uniquely associated with one gender.

A poster for the cinema release of the film Pet Sematary (2019) seen on the side of a bus, in April 2019, featured an image of children with animal masks and carrying various objects, including a spade, a crucifix and a wheelbarrow, walking through the woods with crucifixes in the background. Text beneath stated SOMETIMES DEAD IS BETTER.

Issue 1. Three complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because they believed it might encourage suicide; and

2. one complainant challenged whether the ad would cause unjustifiable distress to people who were grieving the loss of loved ones.

ASA Assessment 1 & 2 Not upheld

The ASA considered that it was clear from the placement, prominence and context of the text Sometimes dead is better that it was a strapline for a horror movie. While we acknowledged that particular care must be taken to prepare ads with a sense of responsibility and ensure that they in no way encouraged or condoned suicide, the ad did not directly reference suicide, nor did it go into any further or specific detail about death or dying.

We noted that the ad included an image of crucifixes, a misty woodland and children in animal masks. We considered that although the ad featured children and referenced death, it did not go so far as to encourage suicide, amongst young people in particular or otherwise. We considered that while the text Sometimes dead is better might be distasteful, it was in keeping with the content of the film and that it was not unusual for death to be referenced in relation to a horror film.

We considered that although the references to death might be upsetting to those who were recently bereaved, we did not consider it excessive in the context of an ad for a horror film. For those reasons, while we acknowledged that the ad may be seen as distasteful, we considered that it did not encourage suicide nor did it cause unjustifiable or excessive distress. We therefore concluded that the ad was not irresponsible and did not breach the Code.