ASA Adjudication on Unilever UK Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Lynx Deodorant, showed a young woman pushing an older woman in a wheelchair in a supermarket. As they passed a male worker, the young woman smelt the worker's deodorant, pushed the woman in the wheelchair away and started to dance and repeatedly sing "Bom chicka wah wah" in front of the man, who smiled as he watched her. A voice-over at the end stated "improved fragrances from Lynx. Now with added Bom chicka wah wah".

Issue

Five viewers, two of whom reported having a disability, objected that the ad was offensive towards disabled people, because it implied they were a hindrance and could be discarded.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Unilever UK (Unilever) said advertising campaigns for Lynx were always loud, fun and outlandish; they were based on the concept of women acting in an unusual way in response to men wearing a Lynx fragrance. They said the ad in question was one in a series of four with a central theme that women were overcome with the Lynx fragrance and were forced to behave in an unusual, over the top and uncontrollable manner to gain the male's attention.

Unilever believed the majority of viewers would think the ad was humorous and the actions of the woman were irrational and slightly surreal. They said the woman's dancing and singing in the supermarket were not realistic and were intended to be comic and outlandish. They said the pushing of the wheelchair out of the way was part of that comic routine and heightened the impression that the woman's behaviour was impulsive and exaggerated.

Unilever said the situation had been chosen as an example of behaviour that was extreme and unacceptable in real life but argued that the ad did not condone or encourage it. They believed the impulsive pushing of the wheelchair was an example of the rash actions of the woman and the majority of viewers would consider that it did not in any way prejudice, stigmatise or undermine the standing of disabled people in society. They said the point of the ad was that the behaviour of the woman was inappropriate.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they had warned Unilever at pre-production stage that the wheelchair being pushed away might be a problem but, once they had seen the rough cut of the ad, they were content that it did not portray the woman in the wheelchair in a negative light; they believed the ad was unlikely to offend. They said viewers were aware that Lynx ads had always contained a bizarre, humorous element.

The BACC said the young woman did not maliciously push the wheelchair out of the way or discard it because the older woman was a hindrance. She gently pushed her aside as she lost control of her senses because of the scent of the deodorant. They said the woman in the wheelchair did not look perturbed by the younger woman's action and was in no way the source of amusement; the ad's focus was on the younger woman. They believed, despite the everyday setting, the ad was clearly fantasy, because of the outrageous way the woman reacted to the scent, and most viewers would consider the ad was humorous.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA considered that the ad showed a clearly fictional situation and was intended to be a humorous depiction of the effect that Lynx deodorant could have on women. We considered that the young woman gently pushing the wheelchair away was likely to be seen as a result of her being overcome by the man's deodorant and was unlikely to be seen as malicious or to imply that disabled people were a hindrance and could be discarded. We considered that the ad was unlikely to be seen as humiliating, stigmatising or undermining to disabled people and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 6.6 (Harmful or negative stereotypes) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)