ASA Adjudication on JKL (Wakefield) Ltd
JKL (Wakefield) Ltd t/a
Eric France Metals
Embassy Works
Church Street
Ossett
West Yorkshire
WF5 9DG
Date:
3 August 2011
Media:
Transport
Sector:
Business
Number of complaints:
5
Complaint Ref:
A11-154876
Ad
Seven ads, for a scrap metal dealer, on the back of local buses in April 2011, featured images of different women dressed in underwear. Each ad contained text stating "KERCHING! GET MORE CASH FOR YOUR SCRAP AT ERIC FRANCE SCRAP METAL MERCHANTS".
a. One ad featured a woman wearing red and white leopard-print underwear and black shoes, lying on her side and propped up on one arm.
b. A second ad featured a woman wearing black underwear. She was lying on her back across some large metal nails with her legs straight in the air and her left hand draped across her chest.
c. A third ad featured a woman wearing blue underwear and white sandals. She was kneeling down with her legs apart and holding two metal bars draped across her shoulders. In the background, there was a muted image of the same woman in a different pose.
d. A fourth ad featured a woman wearing flesh-coloured underwear. She was standing upright and clutching some white-coloured strips of metal in her hands.
e. A fifth ad featured the same woman as ad (c). She was kneeling on all-fours and had her mouth open. There was a muted image of the woman in the background in which she was standing with her legs apart and holding two metal bars in her outstretched arms.
f. A sixth ad featured the top half of a woman wearing a pink and black bra standing upright. There was a muted image of the same woman in the background adopting a similar pose.
g. A seventh ad featured a woman wearing black satin underwear standing upright. There was a muted image of the same woman in the background in a similar pose.
Issue
1. Five complainants challenged whether the ads were offensive, because they believed they were sexist and demeaning to women and noted that the images bore no relation to the product being advertised.
2. Two of the complainants challenged whether the ads were unsuitable to be seen by children.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. Blue Pencil Writers, who replied on behalf of Eric France Metals (EFM), said that the images and messages in the ads were intended to be entertaining, interesting and engaging with a specific audience, without being in any way offensive, demeaning or sexist. They explained that the idea behind the campaign, which had run largely unaltered since 2005, was to indicate how sensible recycling of scrap metal could provide the funds to enable a positive, enjoyable and fun lifestyle. They believed the message of the campaign was clear that waste metal could be exchanged for money, which, they argued, was viewed by most people as making life better. They said, when viewed by a mostly male heterosexual audience, the image of a female model in underwear was seen as a positive signifier of a good lifestyle. They said that the images in the ads were attractive without being provocative and, they argued, were no more revealing than images which commonly featured in newspapers, magazines, billboards or shop windows. They said that in many of the ads, the women were seen with the type of scrap metal that could be recycled for money, so that the connection was even more obvious.
They said the ads were intended to appeal to a much smaller female recycling audience in much the same way, in that they suggested that money from recycling scrap metal could be put to use to bring a touch of glamour into their lives, for example, beachwear and holidays, as was suggested in some of the ads, or simply the connection to an attractive aesthetic. They said they did not consider the images in the ads sexist or demeaning to women because they believed the connection between the images, the product and the target audience was sufficiently strong and that the application was sufficiently sensitive.
2. Blue Pencil Writers, on behalf of EFM, argued that the ads were suitable to be viewed by children because there was no innuendo intended and any such connection would have required the sophistication of a much more mature mind. They said that children would not automatically associate beachwear or underwear with anything unpleasant.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the women featured in the ads were positioned in sexually provocative poses. We disagreed with EFM's argument that there was a sufficiently strong connection between the images and the product, and the target audience which was largely male heterosexual men. We considered that EFM's argument, that the image of an attractive woman in her underwear was a positive signifier of a good lifestyle to heterosexual men and was aspirational to women, was unconvincing and we failed to see a connection between the advertised product and the images. We considered that the sexually provocative poses of the women in the ads had the effect of making them appear sexually available. This was further heightened by the text “KERCHING! GET MORE CASH FOR YOUR SCRAP AT ERIC FRANCE SCRAP METAL MERCHANTS” which, alongside the images of women in their underwear, implied that the women were sexually available in exchange for cash from scrap. We therefore considered that the women in the ads were portrayed as sexual objects or commodities that could be purchased.
We considered that the images, which featured on the back of local buses, were as likely to be seen by women and children as heterosexual males and were not, therefore, targeted at a predominantly male, heterosexual audience. We noted that the ads were in an untargeted medium and were mobile. We considered that the images in the ads were large and intrusive, especially for drivers and passengers travelling behind the buses on which they featured.
We therefore concluded that the ads, which featured images of women in sexually provocative poses in their underwear and which bore no relation to the advertised product, alongside text “KERCHING! GET MORE CASH FOR YOUR SCRAP...” which implied they were sexual commodities to be purchased, were sexist and demeaning to women and were likely to cause serious or widespread offence in an untargeted medium.
On this point, ads (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and offence).
2. Upheld
We noted EFM's argument that children's minds were not sufficiently sophisticated to infer any innuendo from the ads and that children would not automatically associate underwear with anything unpleasant. However, we considered that the ads, which featured women wearing underwear in sexually provocative poses, were unsuitable to be seen by children, regardless of whether or not children understood the sexual nature of the images and were socially irresponsible in an untargeted medium.
On this point, ads (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility).
Action
Ads (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) must not appear again in their current form in an untargeted medium.
