Advertising News

In about a month after the release of the 2012 edition of Ryanair's Cabin Crew Charity Calendar, the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman (Reklamombudsmannen-RO) has received 33 complaints about adverts promoting the calendar.

[Thirty Three] People think the advertisment is sexist and that it doesn't belong on a website meant to sell plane tickets, Advertising Ombudsman Elisabeth Trotzig told The Local.

33 complaints lands the Ryanair calendar campaign second only to an ad campaign for the Victoria Milan dating service, which supposedly encouraged marital infidelity, in terms of the number of complaints filed with the Ombudsman.

Ryanair now has two weeks to respond to the Ombudsman about the complaints, after which the watchdog will decide how to proceed with the case.

Ryanair's spokesperson Stephen McNamara rightly didn't seem bothered by Swedish complaints over the calendar, a project the airline has carried out annually since 2008.

Ryanair's cabin crew calendar has raised EUR500,000 ($672,000) for charity in just five years and we will continue to support the right of our crew to take their clothes off to raise money for those who need it most, he told The Local.

In line with previous years, all 10,000 copies of the 2012 edition of the Ryanair swimsuit calendar have been sold.

Update: Now miserable Brits have a whinge at a Ryanair advert

14th December 2011. See  article from  guardian.co.uk

The advertising watchdog is to launch an investigation into an ad campaign by Ryanair featuring a flight attendant in modest lingerie after whinges that it made it cabin crew look like glamour models .

The slightly pulled down bikini bottom is sure to offend that advert censors of ASA. After all they do have a reputation to uphold as the Daily Mail of media censors.

The Irish budget airline ran a newspaper ad featuring a lingerie-clad flight attendant called Ornella, who appears as the model for the month of February in the Ryanair charity calendar, with the strapline red hot fares & crew .

Ryanair has now been targeted by an online nutter campaign backed by more than 7,000 people.

The Advertising Standards Authority has received 10 complaints from nutters who claim that the ads are sexist and objectify women, particularly female cabin crew . The complainants allege that they are offensive and unsuitable for display in a national newspaper .

A Dutch advertising firm Pool has unveiled a nutter baiting game that allow you to wander the streets of London with an assault rifle.

The concept behind Google Shoot View is pretty simple: wander around any city in the world that already uses Google Maps' Street View and pretend to use a M4A1 assault rifle to shoot anything and everything you see.

Apart from the sound effects the game is barely interactive and you can't really shoot people or cause any damage.

It seems that Google has already cut the game's connection to Google Maps. The Google Shoot View website currently threatens that, We'll be back! Only the YouTube video is left showing what the game looked like.

Perhaps there's not enough left to wind up Keith Vaz, but you never know.

The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman (Reklamombudsmannen -- RO) has ruled that a campaign which referred to the Friggs-brand Naturdiet Shake as a Milfshake wasn't offensive, sexist, stereotying, or in any other way degrading toward women.

The case was referred to the watchdog's jury following several complaints which pointed out that the term milf is a common slang abbreviation for mother/mom I'd like to fuck .

According to one complaint, the advert was deliberately playing on the term and was therefore degrading to women .

Another complainant wrote that the ad was offensive because milf is used as a collective term for women who, despite having had children and no longer being young, are still attractive and, in a younger man's eyes, sexy .

A third complaint argued that the Friggs ad was sexist because it implied that women who have had children should care for their bodies in a manner that keeps them sexually attractive .

The Advertising Ombudsman jury ruled that the ad didn't violate the Advertising and Marketing Communication Practice from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

The jury finds that the expression milf in connection with the image of the product indicates that this is a product for women who want to be considered sexually attractive. However, the jury doesn't believe the presentation gives an impression which can be considered offensive to the average consumer to an extent that violates the ICC's rules, the jury wrote in its findings.

In addition, the ad lacks any other material which could be considered offensive. The jury also argued that the use of the term milfshake was likely considered as humourous .

Because no women is portrayed in the advert, the jury doesn't find that the advert portrays women as pure sex objects in a way that can be considered offensive, the jury wrote.

Two billboards promoting fragrances by a strip club in Cape Town will have to be taken down after a recent ruling by the South African Advertising Standards Authority.

The billboards, by Mavericks, featured a woman in a sexually suggestive pose next to the slogans I was working late or My car broke down . The adverts were for the club's new fragrance line, Alibis.

Complainants claimed that the adverts demeaned and objectified women by portraying them as sexual objects. They said the wording encouraged thought patterns that justified cheating and extramarital affairs.

The ASA said:

It becomes clear that it is not the depiction of a woman's body per se that is problematic. What is of relevance is the reason for the depiction.

The ASA ruled that a woman's body was being used to tantalise the club's male customers into buying a new product, by presenting the fragrance as an extension of its services. The wording of the advert also had no relationship to the female model within the context of the business and the advertised product.

Mavericks, in its submission, said it would paint clothes onto the billboard but ASA ruled that both the original and amended adverts unduly objectified women. The club will now have to take down the billboards within two weeks.

The Internet Advertising Sales Houses of Australia (IASH), which represents many online advertising networks, is having a whinge about using ad distribution services like Google's Adsense. They have gotten upset about adverts for major brands appearing on websites that are not entirely family/image friendly.

IASH cleared one network, Adconion Media Group, following an investigation of claims that the company had placed ads targeting Australian users on a potentially inappropriate site for their brands.

This was after recent media reports revealing ads for brands such as Westpac, Coles and Sony appearing on sites featuring nudity.

IASH president Andrew Lockwood said he was certain that none of the group's members were involved in the practice.

He said since the recent emergence of new ad trading platforms, agencies were choosing a category of sites from thousands of sites available, and may not be aware which sites their ads would appear on. For example, the category of entertainment may include some of the soft porn sites. He said it was sometimes a grey area, with some sites suitable for some brands but not others. He said There is a need for some sort of regulatory body or process about this to ensure the broad safety of advertisers .

But he seems to miss the point that advert distribution services are automated and cheap. And of course placements won't be ideal. If brands want to restrict their adverts to wholesome sites, then it is easy enough, it just takes a more bespoke manual system. But that costs money.

Comment: Acquitted

30th November 2011. From Alan

 Fascinating, eh?

Advert for the movie The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo from...er... Sony Pictures

I notice one of the companies whingeing is Sony. What do Sony make? Among other things, tellies, video equipment and cameras. What do lots of people make and watch using this equipment? Er, porn. Do I see a nose being cut off to spite a face?

The Benetton clothing company has withdrawn a website advert featuring Pope Benedict XVI kissing a top Egyptian imam on the lips after the Vatican denounced it as an unacceptable provocation.

Benetton had said its Unhate campaign was aimed at fostering tolerance and global love. The campaign's fake photos feature a half-dozen purported political nemeses in lip-locked embraces, including President Barack Obama and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.

The photo of the pope kissing Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb of Cairo's al-Azhar institute, the pre-eminent theological school of Sunni Islam, had been on Benetton's website all day but was pulled about an hour after the Vatican's protest.

Al-Azhar suspended interfaith talks with the Vatican earlier this year after Benedict called for greater protections for Egypt's minority Coptic Christians.

Update: Whatever happened to the christian code: 'turn the other cheek'?

19th November 2011. See  article from  monstersandcritics.com om

The Vatican has threatened legal action against Italian clothing company Benetton for its use of a doctored photograph in which Pope Benedict XVI appears to be kissing a top Muslim imam on the mouth.

The Secretariat of State has instructed its lawyers to take on, in Italy and abroad, the appropriate action to prevent the circulation, including through the mass media, a photomontage created as part of the Benetton advertising campaign, the Vatican said in a statement.

The ad was damaging to not only to dignity of the pope and the Catholic Church but also to the feelings of believers.

Phones 4U's Haunt You ad campaign, which features a ghostly image of a child, has received 321 complaints -- the highest in the UK this year.

A few viewers claim the ad, which will run through to Christmas, was too scary for children and adults.

The complaints are being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

An ASA spokesperson said: Members of the public have objected that the ad is unduly scary, unsuitable for children to see, scheduled too early and is frightening for adults.

Phones 4U head of brand communications Caspar Nelson defended the company's advertising style: As far as we are concerned, our core audience of 16- to 35-year-olds recognises those horror scenes and gets our sense of humour .

New Australian nutters on the block, Collective Shout!, organised a whinge to the Australian advert censors of the Advertising Standards Bureau about an online Lynx advert having fun with the rules of rugby.

UK's Daily Mail had also spotted the advert, and ran a piece fishing for 'outrage'.

Anyway the Advertising Standards Board upheld the complaints about the advert and explained:

The Video starts with the statement Lynx presents – Rules to the game – Episode #1: Rugby . A narrator then reads out a number of rugby rules while these rules are played out by a group of young women dressed in sports briefs and short shirts in the national rugby colours of Australia and New Zealand. At the end of the video we see the winning Australian team celebrating and the words Lynx Know your game appear. Voiceover: Go you good thing

Sample complaints:

• I was grossly offended by this advertisement. The way in which these women are dressed and the way in which they are physical with one another is completely inappropriate for national television. Having up-close shots of women's cleavage, butts and stomachs is incongruous with both rugby and male deodorant and is disrespectful to women.

• This advertisement implies that women are nothing more than mere sex objects and that it is appropriate for men to stare at their body parts without remorse. I believe that this ad has been grossly influenced by the pornography industry and the hidden hype surrounding girl on girl pornography. I find it offensive that this attitude and fantasy has been given freedom to be shown on television.

Unilever commented:

The Video was posted on YouTube only Unilever has aired the Video exclusively on its Lynx YouTube channel. We have been careful to restrict the Video on our Lynx YouTube channel to users over 18 by way of using the YouTube age verification function soon after launch. We can confirm that the Video has not been aired on TV as part of an advertising media buy.

Lynx is a brand with a history of fun, tongue-in-cheek, playful advertising. Lynx also has a proud history of award winning commercials which both entertain and surprise its consumers. We submit that the Video continues this tradition of funny entertainment and that the intended young adult male audience understands the playful and hyperbolic nature of the Video and its distinction between fact and fiction.

ASB Decision: Complaints Upheld

The Board first considered whether the advertisement complied with Section 2.1 of the Code which requires that advertisements shall not portray or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief.

The Board noted that the advertisement features young women wearing sports briefs and short shirts demonstrating the rules of rugby but noted that the women are not depicted on a sporting field. The Board considered that the advertisement is clearly shot to emphasise various physical attributes of the women – with lingering shots on the women's breasts, groins and bottoms.

The Board considered that the advertisement depicts the women as sexual objects and that the advertisement did breach Section 2.1 of the Code.

The Board then considered whether the advertisement complied with Section 2.3 of the Code. Section 2.3 states: …shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and, where appropriate, the relevant programme time zone .

The Board noted that the advertisement is posted on the Lynx YouTube channel and that to access the advertisement there a person must be over 18 years of age in order to view it. The Board noted that the advertisement has not been broadcast by the advertiser on television. The Board noted also that the advertisement has been rebroadcast by a number of third parties and is easily able to be viewed on the internet without any age verification.

However the Board overall considered that the relevant audience of the advertisement are Lynx consumers over the age of 18. The Board considered that the content of the advertisement is in keeping with the style of advertising synonymous with the Lynx brand and that the women in the advertisement are all clothed. The majority of the Board considered that in light of the placement of the advertiser's placement of the advertisement in a restricted manner and the relevant audience the advertisement did treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and that it did not breach Section 2.3 of the Code.

Six women met in Jerusalem to be photographed so their pictures can be hung from balconies throughout the city to counteract what appears to be the attempt to keep women out of advertising in the capital.

A group that calls itself Yerushalmim ( Jerusalemites ) and focuses on issues of pluralism is behind the initiative.

The idea is to return the city space to its natural state and turn the appearance of women into something boring, that no one notices, one of the originators of the idea, Rabbi Uri Ayalon, a Conservative rabbi who created a Facebook page called uncensored, through which the women signed up to be photographed.

The six volunteers met at the Jerusalem home of activist Shira Katz-Winkler. One of them, Idit Karni, says: A minority can't take over the city and cause women and girls to disappear. I have four daughters, and I don't intend to leave them a city that has lost its sanity.

Another of the volunteers, Tzafira Stern-Asal who is the director of a dance school, says she has had personal experience with the difficulty of putting women in advertising in the capital when trying to advertise her school. I finally had to limit myself to a shoe or some sort of fluttering material, which certainly reduces the attraction of the ad, she says.

In the first phase of the project, 100 posters of the women will be hung throughout the city, focusing on the downtown area.

The women believe the problem lies with advertisers, who self-censor out of fear of the ultra-Orthodox. Now we'll see the skies won't fall. I don't say it will pass quietly, but people will breathe easier when they see pictures of women returning to billboards.

The US lip balm brand ChapStick is in hot water over supposed 'outrage' at the sexually perceived nature of their latest print advertisement. The ad, which features a woman scrambling around a couch, is entitled WHERE DO LOST CHAPSTICKS GO? and ran in print publications.

The conclusion by those that found this offensive, is that this advertisement is objectifying women by centering on the woman's backside. Apparently on online Facebook posting of the advert also had the filename Ass.jpg, according to the site Redefine Girly.

After receiving backlash in the comments of the Facebook post, administrators of the Facebook page began to delete some of the messages, which brought on cries of censorship and irony . Ultimately, ChapStick pulled the image off of their Facebook page and their website, later posting the following apology:

We see that not everyone likes our new ad, and please know that we certainly didn't mean to offend anyone! Our fans and their voices are at the heart of our new advertising campaign, but we know we don't always get it right. We've removed the image and will share a newer ad with our fans soon!

South Africa's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has instructed a TV advert depicting angels falling from heaven because they are attracted to a man's deodorant, to be withdrawn, as it could offend Christians.

A viewer who complained to the ASA about the advert said the suggestion that angels - God's messengers - would literally fall for a man wearing this deodorant was incompatible with his belief as a Christian, according to the rulin.

The advert for Axe deodorant depicts winged, attractive women crashing to earth in what appears to be an Italian town, and then being drawn towards and sniffing a young man who has used the deodorant. The text at the end of the ad reads: Even angels will fall .

The directorate was concerned that the angels were depicted falling and, secondly, being attracted to a mortal man.

As such, the problem is not so much that angels are used in the commercial, but rather that the angels are seen to forfeit, or perhaps forego their heavenly status for mortal desires. This is something that would likely offend Christians in the same manner as it offended the complainant.

  It appears that graphic artists and public relations professionals in Jerusalem have recently developed a fetish for shoes. A glance at billboards and posters pasted around the city shows that Jerusalem is draped in shoes.

In Jerusalem, a shoe is not just a shoe, says Uri Ayalon, a Conservative rabbi who promotes religious pluralism, and who recently established an uncensored Facebook group that protests against the elimination of women from public spaces. Shoe images, he says, are used to obscure the fact that in Jerusalem women are rarely pictured on public posters and billboards.

It takes time to grasp that something is missing in public spaces in Israel's capital. But once you notice it, it's hard to fathom how you didn't pay attention to this fact earlier. It appears that in recent years, and in an escalated fashion in the past several months, women have disappeared from advertisements in Jerusalem.

This fact does not refer to scantily clad models, who were purged from signs and posters in the city several years ago as a result of campaigns waged by the ultra-Orthodox - struggles that sometimes included the burning and destruction of billboards and bus stops. The purging of women from publicly displayed pictures in Jerusalem applies to images of females in regular dress and daily situations. Pictures of women in family settings and advertisements of women using face cream or being connected to food or fashion products are hard to come by in this city.

Jerusalem municipality officials adamantly deny that there has been a change in the city's advertising policy, and they refer to several advertising campaigns that featured images of women. However, figures in the city's public relations industry admit that women have been entirely removed from public billboards and pictorial advertisements.

It seems that this trend is being led by private advertisers who prefer to conceal women rather than deal with ultra-Orthodox anger. For instance, a hamburger company that promoted its product around the country with a picture of happy family members choose in Jerusalem to show only images of its burgers. In Jerusalem, a campaign for regional radio stations dropped the image of radio presenter Ofira Asayag, which was featured everywhere else in the country.

This becomes a process of self-censorship, explains Rabbi Ayalon. You decide in advance not to use a photograph of a female dancer, so that nobody sprays it. You decide not to confront anything, and that's the position adopted by the advertisement agencies.

A woman holding an old fashioned razor blade with what appears to be blood dripping from it is surrounded by three men who are crowded around her closely. Above the image it says, Underbelly Razor and below is the Channel 9 logo.

Complainants said:

I don't think it is a suitable image/message for a public space as the TV show is rated M and yet children could see the billboard.

It is objectifying the woman and intentionally playing on the rough sex notion.

While there is no sexual act being performed in the poster the woman doesn't look safe as the men look like they will take advantage of her.

I just think it is quite tasteless combining the sexual nature of the billboard with the violent nature.

ASB Decsion: Complaints not upheld

The Board first considered whether the advertisement complied with Section 2.1 of the Code which requires that;

advertisements shall not portray or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief.

The Board noted the advertisement shows a woman holding a razor surrounded by three men. The Board noted the woman does not appear unhappy with the situation she is in, but rather she looks as though she is empowered and in control. The Board noted that one of the men is kissing the woman's shoulder but considered that this does not depict the woman as a sexual object as it is clear that she is the person in control of the situation depicted and the image does not amount to objectification of women. The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.1 of the Code.

Section 2.2 of the Code requires that:

advertising or marketing communications not use violence unless it is appropriate in the context of the advertised product or service.

The Board noted the advertisement is for a television program called Underbelly , a program known to contain violent behaviour, and that the woman is holding a large razor blade dripping with what appears to be blood.

The Board noted that this advertisement was seen on a billboard and potentially it could be seen by children. The Board noted that the image was relevant to the widely recognised television program it is advertising. The Board determined that images of razors are not of themselves prohibited and that in this advertisement the razors are not being used to threaten or injure a person and there is more a suggestion of violence rather than an actual depiction.

The Board agreed that some people would find the image unpleasant and prefer not to see it but the Board determined that the image is relevant to the advertised product and not so strong as to be inappropriate for general viewing.

The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.2 of the Code as it does not depict or condone violence.

The Jack & Jones clothing retailer has been rapped by Sweden's miserable advertising censor for a supposedly sexist ad campaign which utilised scantily clad women to market a line of men's clothing.

The censor took up the case following a few complaints who took issue with Jack & Jones for using scantily clad women who lacked any connection to the men's clothing products being marketed. Complainants argued the adverts amounted to offensive and objectifyingly sexist stereotypes of both men and women . Others complained that the Jack & Jones campaign also discriminated against homosexuals because it only showed heterosexual situations.

In addition to in-store posters, the campaign features a commercial in which a woman in a jogging suit warns, The new spring collection from Jack & Jones has turned out to have some unfortunate side effects that we didn't anticipate. The ad then cuts to a scene in which a man is lying passed out on a bed surrounded by three women dressed in bras and panties. In the next scene, a bare-chested man lying in bed is straddled by a blond woman in her underwear who appears to be trying to revive him before leaning down to blow on the man's crotch. The woman who appeared at the start of the commercial reappears later wearing a bikini and performing aerobic exercises in which she urges viewers to join the company's get in shape and ready for action online fitness club .

The advert censor issued a unanimous ruling condemning the campaign:

Through their clothing and poses, the women are portrayed as pure sex objects and in a way that can be considered offensive to women in general.

In an overall assessment, the committee finds that the advertisement can be considered offensive and that the conventions expressed in it give a stereotypical view of gender roles which is degrading to both women and men.

An advertisement on the side of a bus featured a character from the game in an action pose with a gun and the relevant video game platform packshots that it was available on.

A complainant said:

I do not think this sort of picture should be displayed publicly on buses (or anywhere else for that matter). Young children see these pictures and it could scare them. I was also offended by how large the advertisement was and found it quite affronting. I do not believe society should condone these sorts of images by advertising them in such an open way.

The mask that the man in the ad is wearing is particularly disturbing and his pose is also threatening. The fact that he is carrying a machine gun only adds to the impact. I believe that an ad like this should not be shown where young children can be exposed to it.

ASB Decsion: Complaint not upheld

The Advertising Standards Board noted that the advertisement is clearly for a computer game and the depiction of violence is permitted by the Code if appropriate in the context of the product advertised .

The Board considered that the image of a person holding a gun is relevant to the game. The Board determined that images of guns are not of themselves prohibited and that in this advertisement the gun is not pointed at a person and there is more a suggestion of violence rather than an actual depiction.

The Board determined that the image is not an inappropriate image. The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.2 of the Code as it does not depict or condone violence.

The outdoor billboard features Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake for the release of the film „ Friends With Benefits in cinemas. Mila is making the okay sign with her thumb and forefinger, and Justin is pointing at the okay sign.

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:

• The advertisement includes an obscene gesture for sexual intercourse.

• This looks like a crude gesture for sex which I believe is inappropriate in a public ad. The way the actors are holding their hands is a well-known mime for a sex act. I find this crude vulgar and inappropriate for mass advertising.

• I take offence from the crude and sexual nature of this ad. The finger signs being made by Justin and Mila are a rude and belittling symbol for sex. If I were to make such a symbol at work or amongst my social group it would certainly be seen as a dirty and uncouth thing to do.

• I believe this poster breaches clause 2.3 of the code of ethics as it does not treat sex with in a sensitive manner. I have seen this poster in numerous locations around Melbourne. In particular it is displayed in a bus stop that attracts large groups of school children. I'm sure if these kids went home and made these gestures in font of their parents they were not be received well. I believe it is inappropriate to encourage and promote such insensitive gestures in public.

ASB Decsion: Complaint not upheld

The Board considered whether the advertisements were in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code:

Advertising or Marketing Communications shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and, where appropriate, the relevant programme time zone.

The Board considered that the hand gestures on their own are not in themselves offensive gestures, however, the Board noted that most members of the broad adult audience would recognise the intended double entendre and suggestive sexual nature of the two gestures together. The Board noted there is a level of community concern about the sexualisation of children and acknowledged the placement of the advertisement meant that the relevant audience was very broad and could include children. The Board considered that most young children would not recognize or be familiar with the sexual connotations associated with the gesture, the concept, or with the content of the movie.

The Board acknowledged that some members of the community might be offended by the advertisement but considered that the image is only mildly sexualised and is not offensive or inappropriate.

The Board determined that the advertisement did treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and did not breach Section 2.3 of the Code.

 The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children created a moving and brutal advertisement intended for television as its summer campaign, which features a small boy proclaiming his hopes for a future free from violence while being beaten by a man who is presumably his father.

After drawing some early criticism for being too traumatic for television, the video was ultimately banned in Ireland for an unrelated reason. Namely, the Irish advertising Standards Authority ( IASA ) received 13 complaints that the advertisement is sexist because a man is doing the beating rather than a woman. The IASA agreed, deciding that in the absence of reliable statistics on whether men or women are mostly at fault for violence against children, the ad is too sexist to stay on the air.

Proximity to schools has become a fashionable 'justification' for easy offence. Not just in Britain, but in Australia too.

A bus shelter ad showing a kissing couple next to a packet of condoms is causing nutter controversy in Brisbane, supposedly due to its proximity to a Catholic primary school. Some reports said that couple in the ad appeared to be naked, with clothes painted on.

Australian Christian Lobby's Wendy Francis claimed the new poster was sexually offensive and contained no positive message about safe sex, deeming its placement across the street from the school as inappropriate.

The ACL Queensland branch director said members of the school community were 'distressed' by the poster, and that AdShel had promised to remove the poster within an hour of receiving her complaint. Francis said:

she was totally opposed to this pathetic advertising.

I cannot see why you would place this ad outside a Catholic primary school, where school children catch their bus from, she said.

I object to the highly sexual imagery in the ad, and the poster's message, 'zero or nothing', it's pathetic, it doesn't even have safe-sex message, and all it does is show that money matters more than our children.

Supermodel Gisele Bundchen's latest project, a lingerie campaign for the Brazilian label Hope, has 'appalled' government officials in her homeland and led to calls for the sexist and stereotyped adverts to be axed.

The campaign includes several TV adverts, one of which features a bikini-clad Bundchen, trying to appease her husband after committing a series of marital blunders: crashing his car, maxing his credit card and, worst of all, inviting her mother-in-law to stay.

Bundchen's solution isto seduce her furious husband, using the Hope's new underwear line. The advert's voiceover tells viewers: You're a Brazilian woman, use your charm .

Government officials from the women's secretariat in Brasilia have demanded that it be banned from TV saying:

The campaign promotes the misguided stereotype of a woman as a sexual object of her husband and ignores the major advances we have achieved in deconstructing sexist practices and thinking.

Officials said they had received at least SIX complaints from 'outraged' viewers.