ASA Adjudication on Retell Ltd

Ad

A commercial e-mail, for the Retell call management system, included a large photograph of a naked woman with her back to the camera. Chains were wrapped around her and a sign which stated "ACCESS DENIED" was placed across her bottom.

Issue

One complainant objected that the sexual implications of an image of a naked woman in chains with an "ACCESS DENIED" notice across her bottom, and the dated and sexist view of women it projected, were offensive.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Retell said phone system hacking damaged businesses worldwide and was a serious subject, so they used a strong image to get that message across. They explained that the photograph of the naked woman in chains was chosen because it was the most striking image available when they entered the phrase 'access denied' into a search on a reputable photograph gallery. They did not see any significance in the chains; they merely required an attention-catching image with an 'access denied' label. They said ideally they would have used a photograph of a phone system with an 'access denied' notice, but could not find a suitable image of that.

Retell pointed out that the ad's text contained no innuendo, link or reference to the woman in the photograph. They argued that the image was simply a way to attract attention, and was less offensive than the nudity and sexually explicit innuendo and images (which children could see) in daily newspapers. Before sending the e-mail, they showed it to three female employees of varying ages, to ensure they would not feel uncomfortable about answering questions from resellers about it; none of the employees took offence. They had received no complaints about the ad.

They said they had intended to use the same photograph in a magazine ad, but after contact from the magazine they decided to change it to a picture of a wooden fencing post with barbed wire around it and the words 'warning electric fence'; they did not feel that image was as effective as the one of the naked woman. Nevertheless, they said it was unlikely that the ad under investigation would be repeated, because they did not want to cause offence.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered that, although the ad's image was not explicit, the "ACCESS DENIED" sign across the naked woman's bottom implied anal sex. That sign, in conjunction with the chains wrapped around the naked woman's body, suggested the woman was a sex object and were likely to be seen as demeaning and objectifying women. We noted nudity and sex had no relevance to the product advertised. We concluded that Retell had gone too far in their bid to attract attention and that the commercial e-mail, for an advertiser whose products would be of interest to those wishing to install call management systems, was likely to cause serious offence to some recipients.

The ad breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)