ASA Adjudication on Medical Aesthetic Supplies Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for Ultralase said "If you're considering cosmetic treatment or surgery to enhance the way you look then look no further than Ultralase Medical Aesthetics." It showed a woman emerging from an egg. She was unclothed, but had one arm carefully placed across her chest and one hand over her genital area.

Issue

Issue

1.  11 viewers considered the degree of nudity shown was inappropriate and unsuitable during the daytime and other times of general viewing when children were likely to see it.  The ages of the children mentioned by the viewers ranged from five to nine years.  One viewer mentioned that the ad was shown during the school Easter holiday period, when children were likely to be viewing during the day.

2.  Five viewers considered that the degree of nudity was too explicit and provocative for transmission at any time.

Response

Ultralase said the ad was inspired by Boticelli's painting, Venus, and that they had sought to reflect the embodiment of beauty that the painting represented within acceptable bounds for a TV ad.  They said they agreed the ad could be considered inappropriate for transmission around programmes designed for children and that the restriction to keep it away from them was fair.  However, they did not consider the ad offensive, distasteful or lewd and did not believe further restriction was justified.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they considered the portrayal was artistic and sensitive and not sexual or harmful.  They had approved it with the restriction that it should not be shown around programmes aimed specifically at children - a restriction designed to keep ads away from times when the youngest children watched their own programmes, often without supervision - but did not believe it justified further restriction.  They said that while children might question the visuals, they could see no reason why a child should not see a woman's body when it was sensitively portrayed and decently covered.

Assessment

Complaint not upheld

We did not consider the nudity shown in the ad was unacceptable for transmission with the restriction the BACC had imposed.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of Advertising 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.