ASA Watch

A poster for Rated People , seen in September 2022, featured text stating, Building Work. It's a man's game. Bit like football was. Alongside was an image of a hand holding a drill. Beneath that, smaller text stated, If you've got the skills, we've got the jobs.

Eleven complainants, who believed the ad perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes by suggesting employment in the building industry was exclusive to men, challenged whether it breached the Code.

Rated People Ltd said the ad was one of several ads that were part of a campaign to encourage diversity into the trades profession. They said the intention of the ad itself was to highlight that just as football had traditionally been seen as a man's game, the trades profession continued to be seen in that way. They said the aim of the campaign as a whole was intentionally designed to challenge that stereotype and change that mindset through their message of encouraging women into the trades, with the message that it was skills that were important, rather than gender.

They said that whilst the ad itself had an element of tongue-in-cheek humour, it was intended to recognise the success of the England Women's football team at the recent 2022 UEFA European Women's Football Championship. They said they used that to demonstrate that women could have success in a previously male dominated industry, and to illustrate that the same could also be true in the trades.

ASA Assessment: Compaints upheld

The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not include gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence. It also stated that particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of gender.

We recognised that the ad was part of a wider campaign made up of a number of ads, with the aim of improving diversity in the trades industry and challenging the associated stereotypical bias. However, because the ad was displayed in isolation, we assessed it on its merits alone.

We understood that there was a negative long-established stereotype that building work was a male profession. We considered that consumers were likely to understand the phrase Building work. It's a man's game to mean that building work was a profession that was carried out by men, and was not appropriate for women. The phrase was immediately followed by text stating, Bit like football was, which we acknowledged was intended to imply that, in football, women had successfully challenged a similar stereotype, as exemplified by the success of the recent Women's European Championship 203 and that the stereotype around building work was being challenged in a similar way. We acknowledged that some consumers were likely to interpret the ad that way.

However, we considered that the claims in the ad were ambiguous, and that other consumers were likely to interpret the ad as presenting changing attitudes to football in a negative light, mourning the fact that football might no longer be considered a man's game, and presenting building work as one area where women were still excluded, and should continue to be. We considered that the ad reinforced harmful gender stereotypes that both football and the trade industry should be for men only.

For these reasons, we concluded that the ad included a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm and serious offence, and breached the Code.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Rated People Ltd to ensure they did not present gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm and serious offence.

Two ads (one Instagram and one website) promoted a drinking card game.

a. A paid-for ad on Instagram, for a drinking card game, seen on 4 November 2022 stated, UK's most irresponsible drinking game Spice up your pre-drinks, parties, stag dos and hen dos with an easy to play but brutally exciting drinking game. Warning: This game is NOT for snowflakes and showed an image of a full beer glass with a face on the side which had crosses for eyes and a sloping mouth.

b. Ad (a) linked to a website which featured the beer glass with the face and stated HANGOVER GUARANTEED. DRUNKH is a no fuss, no bullshit drinking game. We've taken away confusing rules, because who understands those when you're pissed? Draw a card, do what it says. Brutal drinking game for parties, stag dos and hen dos. Get DRUNK with DRUNKH!

A complainant challenged whether ad (a) was irresponsible and the ASA challenged whether ad (b) was irresponsible because they:

1. encouraged excessive drinking;

2. portrayed drinking alcohol as a challenge, encouraged irresponsible and anti-social behaviour and linked alcohol with daring behaviour; and

3. suggested that alcohol was a key component to the success of a social event.

4. The complainant also challenged whether ad (a) was inappropriately targeted at people under 18 years of age. Response

DrunkH Ltd said they were new to the market and were not aware of the rules. They said they had ended all paid-for advertising for the game.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld:

The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must be socially responsible and must contain nothing that was likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise. It also stated that marketing communications which included a promotion must not imply, condone or encourage excessive consumption of alcohol.

We considered that the image of the beer glass with a face suggested someone who was inebriated, and the references to the UK's most irresponsible drinking game and The drinking game you'll never remember in ad (a) and the claims hangover guaranteed, when you're pissed and Get DRUNK in ad (b) condoned and encouraged excessive drinking and were therefore irresponsible and breached the Code.

We noted that the advertised game encouraged participants to drink alcohol and complete dares and considered lines such as UK's most irresponsible drinking game, brutally exciting drinking game, Warning: This game is NOT for snowflakes, Brutal drinking game, Not for the SNOWFLAKES, Not for the faint of heart and showing the dare cards portrayed drinking alcohol as a challenge. Furthermore, we considered that the ads encouraged people to behave in irresponsible and daring ways when drinking alcohol.

We considered that readers would understand the claim Spice up your pre-drinks, parties, stag dos and hen dos to mean that playing the drinking game was a significant factor in the success of those events or similar social events. Furthermore, we considered that the claims For the pre-drinkers, for the party goers, Not for the SNOWFLAKES to mean that drinking alcohol as part of the game was an integral part of the events. We therefore considered that the ad (a) implied that alcohol was a key component of the success of social events.

We understood that the ad had been served to people aged between 16 and 32 years and understood that it had not been directed only to people aged over 18. We concluded the advertisers had not taken sufficient care to ensure that the ad was not directed at people under 18 years and it therefore the ad breached the Code.

The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told DrunkH Ltd to ensure their future ads contained nothing that was likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise, encourage irresponsible or anti-social behaviour, portray drinking alcohol as a challenge or suggest that alcohol was a key component of the success of a social event. We also told them to ensure that ads referring to alcoholic drinks were not directed at people under 18 years of age.

A post on the Facebook page for Lee Andrews Male Grooming, seen on 21 June 2022, featured a cropped image of the lower half of a woman wearing a string bikini, lying on a beach. Pubic hair was seen to protrude from the bikini. Above the image, text stated, When spring comes and your [sic] not ready.

A complainant, who believed the image objectified women, challenged whether the ad was offensive and harmful.

Lee Andrews Male Grooming confirmed over the telephone that they believed the complaint was unfounded and did not objectify women.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The ASA noted that Lee Andrews Male Grooming provided grooming services and that, although their name referred to male grooming, they also provided waxing services for women, including bikini line waxing. We therefore acknowledged that the image was not entirely irrelevant to the service they offered.

However, we noted that the image was cropped from the waist down, removing the woman's head and making her groin and pubic hair the dominant focus of the image. We considered that focus used the woman's body to draw attention to the ad, and, in combination with the text in the ad, did so in a way that presented pubic hair as undesirable and the woman in the image as a subject of mockery. We considered that the image was likely to be seen as objectifying and demeaning women.

For these reasons we concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Lee Andrews Male Grooming to ensure that future ads did not cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.

A post on JA Physique Ltd trading as Jake Abbott's Instagram page, seen on 9 May 2022, showed front and back before and after photographs of a young male wearing only shorts. It stated Another young gun with his current update today! -- Setting the foundations for one of the most incredible natural male physiques you will see in the future -- Are you looking to transform your physique. Finally want to overcome the hurdles to fat loss and muscle gain that you've been unable to achieve alone?

The ASA, who considered the person in the ad seemed under 18 years of age, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it exploited young people's insecurities about their body image.

ASA Assessment; ASA view upheld

The CAP Code required marketers to ensure advertising was prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.

The ASA noted that the advertised programme related to diet and exercise. We understood that the boy featured was 14 at the time the ad appeared and considered that the photographs showed someone clearly aged under 18.

We considered that young people who might already be more body conscious because of pre-existing societal pressures (regardless of their actual weight or size, and including those who were of a healthy weight) could be especially vulnerable to ads promoting changing body types being directed at them.

We considered teenage boys in particular would recognise the images in the ad as depicting someone of their age, and would see the after image as presenting a body shape with significant increase in muscle as desirable for someone of their age, particularly when read in conjunction with the statement Another young gun with his current update today!.

We also considered that the text stating that the child featured was Setting the foundations for one of the most incredible natural male physiques you will see in the future, further reinforced that the body shape portrayed was the ideal for males, including teenage boys.

We considered that an ad which suggested a child should change their body shape was likely to exploit young people's potential insecurities around body image, or risked putting pressure on them to take extreme action to change their body shape. We therefore considered the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.

The ad must not appear again. We told JA Physique Ltd to ensure that future posts were responsible.

A paid-for Instagram post and a website for Pure Wines, seen on 26 April 2022.

• a. The paid-for Instagram post featured the text Spark Up Your Life alongside an image of six bottles of wine. An illustration on the label of one of the bottles showed a woman from the neck down, with her breasts exposed, drinking a glass of wine.

• b. The website www.purewines.co.uk, featured a listing for JUNG & SEXY * PET-NAT wine with text that stated R-Rated and an image of the product that had the same label illustration as ad (a). Further text stated, This dark ros39 Pet Nat wine is less provocative than its label but is as entertaining at the same time.

A complainant, who believed the ads linked alcohol with seduction, sexual activity and sexual success, challenged whether they breached the Code.

Pure Wines Ltd said that ad (a) was for a mixed case of sparkling wines called Spark Up Your Life. They did not believe that there was any link between the ad and seduction, sexual activity or sexual success, nor did it imply that alcohol could enhance attractiveness.

They said ad (b) was a listing for a wine called Jung & Sexy * Pet-Nat. They explained that this was a wine named and labelled by one of their suppliers, which was an Austrian winery. It was a young wine, which meant that it was produced and released a short time after the harvest. They said no sexual connotation had been intended and if the winery's intention had been to imply any connection between the design of the label and the name of the wine it would have been that both were sexy, but not sexual. They said that neither the design of the label nor the name of the wine contained a connotation of seduction, sexual activity or sexual success, nor did they imply that alcohol could enhance attractiveness.

They stated that the text r-rated implied that the wine was not suitable for consumers below the age of 18, like all their wines. They said this was an American expression from the world of cinema and was used figuratively.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The CAP Code required that marketing communications must neither link alcohol with seduction, sexual activity or sexual success nor imply that alcohol could enhance attractiveness.

The ASA understood that both ads featured a bottle of alcoholic sparkling wine with an illustration on the label and considered the image was of a woman wearing pants and a long sleeved top which had been pulled up to expose her naked breasts. Her face was not fully visible, but she was sipping a glass of wine. We understood that this label was one which appeared on the product itself. We also understood that the text Jung & Sexy in ad (b) referred to the name of the product.

Notwithstanding that, we considered that the way the model was posed and styled on the label, including that her breasts were deliberately exposed, meant that the image would be seen as sexually suggestive and featured a seductive pose. We therefore considered it was inherently sexual in nature.

We acknowledged that the text, Spark Up Your Life in ad (a) was a reference to the sparkling wines in the case. However, we also considered that, when viewed in conjunction with the image of the woman on label, the text might be understood to refer to sexual activity and further reinforced the depiction of the woman in the ad as sexual in nature.

We considered that impression was also reinforced by the use of the term r-rated in ad (b), which would be understood to refer to films containing adult themes, such as sexual activity. [Note that in the US an R rating is a minimum age of 17 and generally does not allow much in the way of sexual activity].

We considered the text This -- wine is less provocative than its label but is as entertaining at the same time in ad (b), when viewed in conjunction with the image of the woman, would be understood to be an explicit reference to the sexually suggestive pose and styling on the label and also reinforced the depiction of the woman as sexual in nature.

Because the image, particularly in connection with some of the text, was inherently sexual, we concluded that the ads linked alcohol with seduction and sexual activity and therefore breached the Code.

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Pure Wines Ltd to ensure their future advertising did not link alcohol to seduction, sexual activity or sexual success.

A pre-roll ad for a Comedy Central programme called East Mode with Nigel Ng featured a young man and his parents sitting together over tea. At the beginning of the ad, the mother said, Son, we're worried about you. The father then said, It's just you are nearly 30 years old now and you have never brought a girl home to meet us. Or a boy. No-one. The mother continued, So we've arranged something for you. The young man interrupted, I told you, I'm not into this whole arranged marriage thing. The mother replied, It's not that, that's such an antiquated tradition, so intrusive. The son asked, OK, so what have you arranged? The parents were shown taking each other's hands before the father said, We have arranged for you a f[bleep] buddy. The word fuck was partially censored. Both parents looked pleased and proud. The son looked shocked and said, A what? The mother said, Oh sorry, maybe you kids call it something else these days. You know, someone you have casual sex with, friend with benefits. The father continued, Cum chums, pound pals. They then interviewed a series of potential partners. The interview conversations included the claims d in the v action, penis to enjoy, if you do decide to try some pegging and I'm more into mutual masturbation these days.

The ad was seen before a YouTube video called 10 Most Powerful Prehistoric Animals that Ever Existed on the Facts Machine channel.

A complainant challenged whether:

1. the sexually explicit and profane language in the ad was offensive; and

2. the ad was irresponsibly targeted, as it was shown before a programme that they believed would be of interest to children. Response

Paramount acknowledged that the ad was not suitable for children and said they had not intended it to be seen by children or served alongside content served to children. They said that their agency set its audience targeting to 18+. They said that the Facts Machine YouTube channel was not labelled as Made for kids and that this meant that adult content would not be completely restricted, and some ads suitable for adults might be shown, especially if the channel was viewed via a device logged into an adult user's account.

Paramount said that the ad was no longer running and that they had initiated a review of their compliance procedures relating to age-restrictions of programme content advertising and issues such as bleeping and adult content warnings.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

1. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the ad was intended to be humorous and irreverent and that it reflected the content of the advertised show. We noted that the ad did not include any explicit visuals and that the humour in the ad was generated in part by the contrast between the polite, formal situation and the profane conversation. However, we considered the profane comedy and language and explicit sexual references were likely to cause serious offence to a general audience. Viewers who were not familiar with the advertised show and who had not been warned of the adult content of the ad were particularly likely to be offended.

We concluded that, in the context and media in which it had appeared, the ad was likely to cause serious offence.

2. Upheld

We noted that Facts Machine described itself as a channel where you will find videos about interesting stuff from various topics. We considered that, although it was not explicitly targeted at children, the channel showed content that was likely to appeal to children, such as short-form content about animals. In light of the ad's use of profane comedy and language and explicit sexual references, we considered that the ad should have been appropriately targeted to avoid the risk of children seeing it.

We noted the targeting exclusions and keywords placed by Paramount and we considered it reasonable for them to have expected that, by placing them, the ad would not have appeared around content of interest to children. However, those exclusions had proved insufficient to prevent the ad from being seen around videos on Facts Machine channel, before an animal video. Because the ad appeared before a video likely to appeal to children, we concluded that it had been inappropriately targeted.

We concluded that the ad had been irresponsibly targeted.

We told Paramount UK Partnership to take care to avoid causing serious or widespread offence in future and to ensure their ads were appropriately targeted and that ads that were unsuitable for viewing by children did not appear in media that was likely to appeal to children.

A TV ad for Vegan Friendly UK, a campaign group, seen in March 2022, showed two women and one man sat around a table eating.

The first woman said, [A]nd plastic straws are ruining the oceans. Poor fish don't stand a chance. A close-up of the woman's mouth whilst eating fish was shown, followed by three clips of fish in quick succession, before showing the woman's mouth again. The first clip showed a large number of live fish out of water on a conveyor belt, the second clip showed a close-up of a fish head which was still gasping for air, and the final clip showed headless fish being filleted on a chopping board that had streaks of blood and fish guts on it.

The man then said, There's countries that still have bullfighting, to which the first woman replied, And wet markets. A close-up of his meal was then shown, followed by a close-up of him eating it. The man replied, They just don't care about animals like we do babe, followed by three clips in quick succession. The first clip showed a live piglet, alongside a pig with its eyes closed. The second clip then showed pork meat being chopped with a cleaver, followed by blood splashing onto a takeaway box.

The second woman then said, Let's not even mention human rights issues. A close-up of the man eating with his mouth open was shown, and quickly followed by a close-up of a burger, with thick red sauce spilling out. The first woman replied, Can we all just treat living beings the same please, to which the second woman said That's real equality. A close-up of the woman eating the burger was shown, followed by a clip of a cow's face which appeared to have tears coming from its red eye, alongside a moo-ing sound.

Close-ups of all three adults eating loudly with their mouths open were shown in quick succession, and the second woman had red sauce smeared on her face. Interchanging clips of animals followed by the humans' eyes were then shown. The first animal clip showed a piglet's eyes, alongside a squealing noise. The second animal clip was a fish out of water with its gills moving. The third animal clip showed the eye of a pig, accompanied by squealing, and the fourth showed the eye of a chicken, accompanied by squawking. The face of a live cow was then shown, which was then quickly followed by a cow's skinned head, with its eyes and teeth still present, lying on its side. As they continued to eat, text stated no animal was harmed, consumed, or purchased to make this advert, followed by the text MAKE THE CONNECTION.

The ASA received 63 complaints:

1. Some complainants challenged whether the ad contained graphic imagery and gratuitous violence towards animals, which caused unnecessary distress to viewers;

2. Some complainants also challenged whether the ad was scheduled appropriately, because it was broadcast when children could be watching; and

3. Some complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive because it vilified meat eaters.

Vegan Friendly believed that the ad did not cause distress, but said that if offence was caused by the ad, it was justifiable because billions of animals were killed in the meat industry.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

1. & 2. Upheld

The BCAP Code stated that ads must not distress the audience without justifiable reason. The Code also stated that relevant timing restrictions must be applied to ads that might harm or distress children of particular ages, or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. We acknowledged that the ad was given a scheduling restriction which prevented it from being transmitted in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal to children under 16.

The ASA noted that some of the imagery used in the ad was graphic in nature. Whilst some of the images were not inherently graphic or violent, we considered that some of the clips shown were likely to cause distress within the context of the ad; in particular, the clip of the cow which appeared to be crying, and the several clips that showed fish struggling to breathe. We also considered that the image of the skinned cow's head shown at the end of ad was particularly graphic and, in itself, likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences.

We considered the way in which the ad was shot had an impact upon the distress likely to have been felt by the audience. We noted that the quick succession of clips shown throughout the ad, and the juxtaposition between the adults eating and the animal imagery, would heighten the distress felt by viewers. We also considered that the camera angle was used to focus on the distress of the animals shown in the ad, for example by focusing on the gills moving in the several clips of the fish or the eye of the crying cow. In addition, we considered that the splash of blood that jumped from one clip and landed on the takeaway box in the following clip, deviated from what would be expected in normal food preparation, and as such we considered its inclusion to be gratuitous. We therefore considered that the way that the ad had been shot and edited contributed to the visceral nature of the ad.

We noted that both Clearcast and Vegan Friendly UK understood that the imagery shown in the ad was akin to what viewers could expect to see in cookery programmes or on the high street when walking past a butcher's shop or fishmonger's shop. We acknowledged that some clips which showed meat or fish being prepared for consumption, such as the fish being filleted, would not be out of place out on food programmes or when purchasing meat or fish. However, we considered that several of the clips shown, such as the clips which depicted animals in distress or the skinned cow's head, would likely not be seen in these places. In addition, visiting a butcher or watching a cookery programme was an active choice which came with different expectations to those of TV ads.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences and therefore was not suitable for broadcast on TV regardless of scheduling restrictions.

3. Not upheld

We acknowledged that some viewers might believe that the adults were portrayed as hypocritical in their discussion of social and environmental issues in the ad, and might see the ad as portraying the characters in a negative light. We also acknowledged that some may have found the close-up shots of the adults eating unpleasant. However, we considered that the shots were both exaggerated for effect and we considered viewers would generally accept that the ad was trying to highlight how people's actions might not necessarily align with their beliefs.

We considered that the ad would be seen in the context of Vegan Friendly's wider aim to increase peoples' consumption of plant-based food by imploring them to think about the relationship between meat and animals being killed, rather than explicitly vilifying meat eaters. We considered that was reinforced by the tagline make the connection at the end of the ad.

We also noted that the adults were not shown killing or harming the animals, and neither was derogatory nor insulting language used towards them for choosing to eat meat.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was likely to be seen as distasteful by some viewers, but not likely to cause widespread offence by vilifying meat eaters.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Vegan Friendly UK to avoid using imagery which was likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences.

An outdoor poster ad for Get Hard, an online gay sex toy store, seen in January and February 2022, featured a person wearing a gimp mask and a background of aubergine and peach emojis. Large text superimposed in-front of the person's face said GET HARD and ANYONE CAN GET INTO IT!. The ad also included the URL www.WeGetHard.com.

The ASA received two complaints. The complainants challenged whether the ad was:

1. offensive because they believed it was overly sexualised; and

2. inappropriate for display in an untargeted medium where children could see it.

Get Hard Ltd said they used the tagline Get Hard. Anyone can. Get into it! to encourage an attitude of passion, grit, empathy, affection and self-care, that could be reached by anyone.

Get Hard said they wanted to encourage people to be open with themselves and have fun with the topic of sex, rather than the over serious and frigid attitude they believed was held by many people.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ad was displayed at an outdoor poster site in London, which was an untargeted medium and where the image was likely to be seen by children and adults.

The ad featured a person in what appeared to be a gimp mask and large text that stated GET HARD. We understood that a gimp mask was an item of clothing worn by some people during sex who liked to be dominated. We considered that the image of the person wearing a gimp mask, which also emphasised their open mouth, was overtly sexual. We also considered that the text GET HARD was likely to be understood as slang for an erection, which we considered was sexually suggestive. We further understood that the peach and aubergine emojis were commonly used as references to a bottom and a penis, respectively, and often had sexual connotations. Taking the image of the person in the gimp mask together with the references to getting hard and the use of peach and aubergine emojis, we considered that the ad was overtly sexual.

We concluded that, because the ad was overtly sexual and was displayed in an untargeted medium where it had the potential to be seen by a large number of people, including children, it was likely to cause serious and widespread offence and was irresponsible. We concluded that the ad was unsuitable for outdoor display and therefore breached the Code.

The ad must not appear again in outdoor advertising. We told Get Hard Ltd to ensure that their advertising was suitably targeted and to exercise caution when preparing ads for display in outdoor space.

A tweet and two poster ads for sports bras, seen in February 2022:

• a. A tweet on Adidas' own account showed, in a grid format, the bare breasts of 20 women of various skin colours, shapes and sizes. The pictures were identically cropped to show only the torso from below the shoulders to above the navel. It stated, We believe women's breasts in all shapes and sizes deserve support and comfort. Which is why our new sports bra range contains 43 styles, so everyone can find the right fit for them. Explore the new adidas sports bra collection at LINK. #SupportIsEverything.

• b. A poster showed the same cropped images of the bare breasts of 62 women and stated, The reasons we didn't make just one new sports bra.

• c. A poster showed the same text and cropped images of 64 women, but their nipples were obscured by pixelation.

The ASA received 24 complaints.

1. Some complainants, who considered the ads' use of nudity was gratuitous, objectified women by sexualising them and reducing them to body parts, challenged whether they were harmful and offensive; and

2. Some complainants also challenged whether ads (b) and (c) were appropriate for display where it could be seen by children. Response

1. Adidas UK Ltd believed the images in the ads were not gratuitous; they were intended to reflect and celebrate different shapes and sizes, illustrate diversity and demonstrate why tailored support bras were important. They said the images had been cropped to protect the identity of the models and to ensure their safety. All the models shown had volunteered to be in the ad and were supportive of its aims. They did not consider the ad to be sexual; they intended to show breasts simply as a part of a woman's body.

2. Adidas said that the pictures were intended to reflect and celebrate different shapes and sizes and they did not believe they would cause harm or distress to children.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the intention of the ads was to show that women's breasts differed in shape and size, which was relevant to the sports bras being advertised. Although we did not consider that the way the women were portrayed was sexually explicit or objectified them, we considered that the depiction of naked breasts was likely to be seen as explicit nudity. We noted the breasts were the main focus in the ads, and there was less emphasis on the bras themselves, which were only referred to in the accompanying text.

We acknowledged that in ad (c) the women's nipples had been obscured by pixelation. Although the image was less immediately explicit, we considered that the breasts were still visible and recognisably naked, and therefore the effect of the image would be the same as in the ads (a) and (b).

As the ads contained explicit nudity, we considered that they required careful targeting to avoid causing offence to those who viewed them.

Ads (b) and (c), which were large posters, appeared in untargeted media and were therefore likely to be seen by people of all ages, including children. We considered that the image was not suitable for use in untargeted media, particularly where it could be seen by children. We concluded that ads (b) and (c) were inappropriately targeted, and were likely to cause widespread offence.

We noted the content typically featured on the Adidas Twitter feed promoted their sportswear for women and considered explicit nudity was not in keeping with their usual content. Because ad (a) featured explicit nudity, we concluded it was likely to cause widespread offence in that media.

We therefore concluded that the ads breached the Code.

The ads must not appear again in the forms complained of. We told Adidas UK Ltd to ensure their ads did not cause offence and were targeted responsibly.

A website for the clothing retailer Boohoo, www.boohoo.com, seen on 26 November 2021, featured a product listing for a T-shirt. Two images in the ad showed a model wearing the T-shirt with only thong-style bikini bottoms and trainers; one was a rear view that showed her kneeling, the other showed her sitting on the ground with her legs apart. Another image was an upper-body shot that showed the model lifting the T-shirt as if to remove it and exposing the skin on her stomach and side.

A complainant, who believed that the images objectified and sexualised women, challenged whether the ad was offensive, harmful and irresponsible.

Response Boohoo.com UK Ltd said the images were part of their swimwear category and explained that the model was wearing the T-shirt with a bikini. As a brand they often combined a variety of products in their images to show how items could be worn in different ways. They said that the way they presented their garments reflected the diversity of women in society and their customer base.

Boohoo said that they understood the importance of the issues raised and had removed the images from their website.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The ASA understood that although it had been presented as part of the swimwear category, the advertised product was an oversized T-shirt and the product listing appeared as a result of searches for T-shirts or tops.

In one of the images, the model was shown from the rear in a kneeling position and we noted that the T-shirt was folded under so that the bikini bottoms and the model's buttocks and naked legs were visible and prominent. We considered that the image emphasised the model's buttocks and legs rather than the product and that she was posed in a sexually suggestive way from behind, with her hand appearing to be tucked into the bikini bottoms at the front.

In another image the model was sitting with her legs spread apart so that the focus was on her crotch and we considered that pose was also sexually suggestive, taking into account that she was wearing the T-shirt folded under again and with only the bikini bottoms on her lower half.

In a third image, the model was wearing the T-shirt with trousers over the bikini bottoms. However, she was seen lifting the T-shirt to expose her stomach and side and we considered the emphasis of that image was also her exposed skin rather than the product.

We also noted that neither the partial nudity nor the bikini bottoms were relevant to the product and that the images did not show the product as it would usually be worn.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ad objectified and sexualised women. It was therefore irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Boohoo.com UK Ltd to ensure that future ads were prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society and that they did not cause serious or widespread offence or harm by objectifying women.

Offsite Comment: Sob Story: The ASA's Puritanical Fear Of The Female Body

17th February 2022. See article from reprobatepress.com

The self-declared advertising authority uses modern buzzwords to disguise the decidedly Victorian morality behind its decisions.