ASA Adjudication on Unilever UK Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, a cinema ad, three video posters, five posters and an internet ad for Lynx Bullet body spray

a. The TV ad showed a man who encountered women in several situations; the track 'Can't Seem to Make You Mine' by The Seeds played. The women the man saw were fully clothed until he looked back and each was in her underwear. He was shown in a supermarket, where a woman again appeared in her underwear. He then sprayed himself with the bodyspray and when the woman looked back, she saw him wearing only underpants. They exchanged glances and the voice-over stated "never miss an opportunity with new Lynx Bullet. Pocket pulling power". Text on screen stated "NEW LYNX BULLET POCKET PULLING POWER".

The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction, which meant it should not be shown in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.

b. The cinema ad was the same as ad (a).

The other ads all included an image of a large hand holding a small can of Lynx Bullet body spray.

c., d. & e. Three projected video posters were shown on underground platforms. Each showed a different woman walking past the man fully clothed until he looked back and saw her in her underwear. The ads ended with text on screen that stated "NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY NEW LYNX BULLET POCKET PULLING POWER".

f. & g. Two posters appeared in underground stations. Text stated "GET OFF AT EVERY STOP POCKET PULLING POWER NEW LYNX BULLET" and "MIND THE GIRLS POCKET PULLING POWER NEW LYNX BULLET".

h. & i. Two posters appeared in shopping centres, on the side of buses and at bus stops. Text stated "POCKET PULLING POWER NEW LYNX BULLET" or "NEW LYNX BULLET POCKET PULLING POWER".

j. A billboard poster stated "WAKE UP WITH MORE THAN A HANGOVER POCKET PULLING POWER NEW LYNX BULLET".

k. An Internet ad included two images of a woman in her underwear. In one she 'beckoned' the audience and in the other she had her back to the audience but looked back over her shoulder. Text stated "ANYTIME [sic] ANYWHERE NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY PROVE YOUR PULLING POWER ... NEW LYNX BULLET POCKET PULLING POWER CHALLENGE ...".

Issue

The ASA received 41 complaints.

1. Some viewers complained that ad (a) was offensive and demeaning to women, because it portrayed them as sex objects. Some also complained that it was not appropriate to be broadcast when children might be watching.

2. One viewer complained that ad (a) was offensive because it glamorised casual sex.

3. Two complainants said that ad (b) was not appropriate to be shown with films where children might be in the audience. One of the two said it was offensive and demeaning to women.

4. Other complainants said that ads (c), (d), (e), (h) and (i) were offensive and demeaning to women, because they portrayed them as sex objects. Some complained that they were not appropriate to appear where children might see them.

5. Some of those complainants also believed that because ads (c), (d) and (e) appeared in a crowded public environment, and might encourage men to look at women as sex objects, they were likely to be intimidating to women and make them feel unsafe when travelling alone.

6. Some complainants said that ads (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) were offensive because they glamorised guns and violence by linking the Lynx Bullet bodyspray with sex. They believed that the words and images in the ads played on the theme of gun crime to promote the body spray.

7. One complainant said that ad (j) was offensive because it glamorised binge drinking and casual sex.

8. One complainant said that ad (k) was offensive and demeaning to women because it portrayed them as sex objects.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Unilever UK Ltd (Unilever) said that advertising for the Lynx brand provoked diverse reactions and opinions but it was not their intention to cause harm or offence.  Lynx had been extremely popular for its playful, sexy, tongue-in-cheek take on the 'mating game' narrative, to which they continuously added creative new twists. The key theme of the majority of Lynx ads was the attractiveness of the product to women; that was what the audience had come to expect and with which it was comfortable.

1., 3. & 8. Unilever said the narrative of the story revolved around 'missed opportunities'. It was designed to show the product's portability whilst showing how opportunities could be missed without it.  Lynx males could expect to attract women passively just by using the body spray; the underwear was a playful metaphor for attraction but it was never intended to promote predatory behaviour or to reinforce negative stereotypes about women.  The women in the ad were confident and in control throughout. The man was passively attentive and the tone was light-hearted, flirtatious and humorous.  The ads were deliberately sexy but they did not demean women or portray them as sex objects.  Unilever did not believe that they would cause serious or widespread offence.  The cinema ad was not shown before films with a young audience and the TV ad was given an ex-kids restriction; they believed they had been appropriately scheduled.

Clearcast said ad (a) had been thoroughly scrutinised because it would attract attention; it was viewed by the Secretariat and also the Copy Committee.  They felt that although it had sexual content, it benefitted from a comic tone, especially during the twist at the end where the woman viewed him in the same way he had viewed the other women and he was wearing an unflattering animal print thong; the tables were turned and the attraction was mutual.  They thought that comic tone would be understood by most viewers and so the ad would be unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.  The nudity was not excessive and the actions of the male character were not especially troubling. He had a clear interest in the girls but admired them in a natural, innocent and self-conscious manner.  They felt viewers would be familiar with Lynx advertising, which had a common tongue-in-cheek, sexy theme.  The ad was given an ex-kids timing restriction to ensure limited exposure to very young viewers.

The Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) said that they had not received any complaints about ad (b).  When they considered the ad, their Copy Panel took into account that women being shown in their underwear as a result of being mentally undressed by the man might cause minor offence.  However, they did not believe that the ad was demeaning to women or that it would cause serious or widespread offence, because the tone of the ad was immediately set as humorous rather than as sexy; the women were not objectified but remained strong individuals who ignored the man's hopeful gaze (their glances towards him once they were 'undressed' were clearly in his imagination, hence his subsequent disappointment). The images of the women were not 'sexed up', the underwear they wore was pretty but not glamour wear and further humour was introduced when the man was seen in his underwear; his semi-nakedness was in sharp contrast to the women because he appeared gawky in his ill-fitting tasteless briefs.

The Copy Panel felt that the ad took the clich of men mentally undressing women and humorously turned it on its head; when the woman looked at him in his briefs at the end of the ad her expression was sardonic.  The audience would not imagine that she was about to throw herself into his arms and it was only in his imagination that her expression was one of desire.  Because they were mindful that parents might not want to explain what was happening in the ad to very young children, the Copy Panel restricted the screening of the ad to films other than those children's films with a 'U' certificate. They did not feel, however, that it contained material that was disturbing to children over the age of around seven because they were able to cope with the images included in 'PG' films.

2. & 7. Unilever said they believed the ads would not cause serious or widespread offence and did not glamorise casual sex.  In particular, the text "WAKE UP WITH MORE THAN A HANGOVER was intended to be playful and humorous.  It was suggestive but did not encourage or condone binge drinking or casual sex.  The tag line was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying, if you want to get the girl, use Lynx body spray because drinking will get you nowhere.

4. Unilever said their agency had worked with the CBS Outdoor copy approval team in distributing ads (c), (d) and (e).  Because the audience on the London underground was predominantly adults, Unilever considered the ads were appropriate for the media.  The tagline "POCKET PULLING POWER" was intended to convey the message that the product, which came in an innovatively sized can, could help men attract women.  They also believed that these ads were not demeaning to women and would not cause serious or widespread offence; they were also appropriate for the media in which they appeared.

CBS Outdoor said the ads were within their guidelines and appeared to present the product in a light hearted way.  They did not think the images or text in the ads were a problem and said they were not aware of any complaints from the travelling public.

5. Unilever believed that the ads did not encourage men to look at women as sex objects. It was the man hoping to attract the attention of the women in the ads.  Lynx ads were not about men imposing themselves sexually on women but about making them seem irresistible, with the male adopting a largely passive role.  In ads (c), (d) and (e) there was no suggestion that the women felt intimidated or in danger; they carried themselves with an air of relaxed self-confidence.  Unilever felt that the ads were unlikely to encourage the intimidation of women or to make them feel unsafe when travelling alone.

6. Unilever said Lynx Bullet was the first pocket-sized bodyspray in the UK.  The product was designed to be portable so it could be used anywhere.  The name was intended to convey the product's unique size and its sleek, compact design; it was usual for products with similar designs to be named 'bullet'.  They recognised that gun crime was a problem and they supported the aims of organisations who tried to tackle the issue and help those affected by it.  There was no intention, however, to connect the product name to gun crime or violence or to otherwise play on that theme.

The ads included an image of a large hand holding a Lynx Bullet bodyspray to reinforce the message that they should carry the spray with them at all times to ensure they never missed an opportunity to attract the girl. The hand was intended to depict the product's portability and convenience.  The strap lines played on common phrases, such as 'mind the gap', and on innuendo in support of the tag line "POCKET PULLING POWER" and of the long-standing 'mating game' theme.  There were no references to guns or violence and the ads did not contain anything that glamorised gun crime or violence in any way.

Assessment

1. & 3. Not upheld

The ASA considered the ads showed a clearly fictional situation, in which women could be seen by a man without their clothes when walking down the street.  We noted the women were wearing underwear and did not strike overtly provocative or sexual poses.  The ads were not explicit and the innuendo in them was mild; they clearly used humour to depict a scenario that took place only in the man's mind.  We acknowledged that some viewers might find the images of women distasteful but nevertheless concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as sexist or demeaning to women.

We noted ad (a) had been given an ex-kids restriction by Clearcast and ad (b) had been restricted to films other than those with a 'U' certificate by the CAA to minimise the risk of them being seen by very young children.   We considered the images of women in their underwear, although not explicit, were likely to be inappropriate for very young children.  We noted the ads were shown during programmes and before films that older children might have seen.  We considered, however, that although they contained images of women in their underwear, because there was no nudity or explicit imagery and because older children were likely to recognise that the situation was unrealistic, the ads were not inappropriate for, or likely to cause harm to, older children who might be watching TV at times of the day outside children's programming slots.  We concluded that the ex-kids restriction, and the CAA restriction to films other than those with a 'U' certificate, was appropriate and sufficient.

On points 1 and 3, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code clauses 5.1 (Decency) and 47.1 (Children) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and TV Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find them in breach.

2. & 7. Not upheld

We noted ad (a) did not include any suggestion that the man had sex with any of the women.  He was not shown touching them and the ads did not include any explicit sexual imagery.  We considered the innuendo was mild and, because it used humour to depict a clearly fictional situation, the ad was unlikely to be interpreted to condone casual sex.

We also considered the innuendo in ad (j) was mild; we noted the ad also used humour to suggest a clearly fictional scenario, in which males could attract women solely by using Lynx Bullet.  The ad was intended to imply that drinking would not prove successful in attracting women, whereas using Lynx would, and considered it was unlikely to be interpreted to condone binge drinking.  We acknowledged that the ads might be distasteful to some consumers. However, because they used playful humour and only mild innuendo to depict a clearly fictional scenario, we concluded that they were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On points 2 and 7, we investigated ads (a) and (j) under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.1 (Offence) but did not find them in breach.

4. Not upheld

We noted ads (c), (d) and (e) included images of women in underwear but, again, those images were not overtly sexual or provocative.  We also noted ads (h) and (i) included the text "POCKET PULLING POWER".  We considered, however, that that text used humour to refer to the size of the product and to a clearly fictional scenario, in which men could attract girls solely by using a bodyspray.  We acknowledged the images of women in their underwear might be distasteful to some people but, because they used playful humour to depict a clearly fictional scenario, we considered they were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Although we considered the images of women in ads (c), (d) and (e) were likely to be unsuitable for very young children, we considered, because the ads clearly depicted an unrealistic scenario and were not explicit, they were not inappropriate for older children.  We noted that Unilever had taken the composition of the audience on the underground into account and considered it was unlikely that very young children would see the ads unaccompanied by adults, who could explain it to them.  We also considered it was unlikely that young children would understand the text in ads (h) and (i) and that the humour was unlikely to be unsuitable for older children.  We concluded the ads were not inappropriate to appear where children might see them.

On this point, we investigated ads (c), (d) and (e), (h) and (i) under CAP Code clauses 5.1 (Decency) and 47.1 (Children) but did not find them in breach.

5. Not upheld

We considered the women in the ads appeared confident and were not shown being intimidated by the man at any stage.  We noted they were wearing underwear and did not strike provocative or overtly sexual poses.  We considered the ads clearly showed a fictional situation that, whilst reflecting the man's desire for the women to be undressed, took place only in his mind and contained no intimidation or any interaction between them.  We considered that, because they used humour to depict a scenario that was clearly fictional, the ads were unlikely to cause men to view women as sex objects or to cause women to feel unsafe when travelling alone.

On this point, we investigated ads (c), (d) and (e) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Decency) but did not find them in breach.

6. Not upheld

We noted ads (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) each included an image of the product in a large hand and included the product name: LYNX BULLET.  We also noted that although the bodyspray was called 'Bullet', the ads contained no other reference to, or link with, guns, shooting or violence.  We acknowledged that some people might find the name offensive but considered that, in conjunction with the image of the large hand in the ads, it clearly made reference to the size of the product rather than to gun crime.  We also considered the ads were not overtly sexual but used humour to refer to a situation that was clearly fictional.  We therefore concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and did not glamorise guns and violence.

On this point, we investigated ad (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility), 5.1 (Decency) and 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour) but did not find them in breach.

8. Not upheld

We noted that ad (k) included images of a women in her underwear; in one image she beckoned the audience.  We considered the pose, although it appeared slightly more suggestive than the images of the women in ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), was not overtly sexual or provocative; there was no nudity or sexually explicit imagery in the ad.  We considered the text used humour to refer to the size and portability of the product and the overall impression of the ad was not such that it portrayed women as sex objects.  Whilst we acknowledged that some might find the images of a woman in her underwear distasteful we concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated ad (k) under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)