ASA Adjudication on Diesel (London) Ltd

Ad

Two posters, a Dazed and Confused magazine ad and a Grazia magazine ad for a clothing company:

a. One poster featured an image of a woman standing outdoors in a bikini. The woman was shown holding open her bikini bottoms with one hand and taking a photograph of her genitals with the other. A lion was shown prowling behind her and text stated "SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS. BE STUPID. DIESEL”.

b. Another poster featured an image of a woman on a stepladder who was lifting her top and exposing her breasts to a security camera. Text stated "SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS. BE STUPID. DIESEL”.

c. A Dazed and Confused magazine ad featured an image of a woman on a stepladder who was lifting her top and exposing her breasts to a security camera. Text stated "SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS. BE STUPID. DIESEL”.

d. An ad in Grazia magazine featured an image of a giant inflatable shape with a smiley face on it. Two denim clad bottoms were shown poking through holes in the face as if to form its eyes. Text stated "ONLY THE STUPID CAN BE TRULY BRILLIANT. BE STUPID. DIESEL”.

Issue

33 complainants objected that the ads:

1. were unsuitable to be seen by children;

2. were offensive; and

3. condoned or encouraged behaviour that was anti-social.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1., 2 & 3. Diesel (London) Ltd (Diesel) said poster (a) portrayed a very strong and unexpected image of femininity, aligning it with typically masculine themes such as the lion and that the confident behaviour in combination with the use of the text "Stupid has the balls" described her way of thinking. They said poster (b) and press ad (c) showed the woman on the ladder in a non-exploitative way and that the message tackled societys pre-occupation with 24/7 camera surveillance, yet in a light and non-threatening way. They said that collectively the Be Stupid campaign was a rallying call to do things differently from the accepted wisdom and to live a life less ordinary.

They argued that there was nothing within the content of the ads that was offensive and that they did not contain any provocative nudity beyond the usual amounts shown in many swimwear, sportswear or lingerie ads.

Dazed and Confused said their magazine had always covered provocative subjects and that the ads were within the context of the magazines editorial content. They explained that the average age of their readers was between 21 and 24 years and that their readers tended to start buying the magazine during their years at university and continued to read it into their 30s. They said their readers were unlikely to be offended by the ads.

Grazia said they were happy to carry the ad in question and that their magazine was aimed at 18-to 34-year-olds with an average age of 32. They said they did not think the ad was offensive or inappropriate for their readers in any way.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that none of the ads showed full frontal nudity but considered that posters (a) and (b) contained sexual undertones. We noted ads (a) and (b) were posters and therefore appeared in an untargeted medium that were difficult to avoid and were likely to be seen by children. We considered the image of the woman in poster (a) was likely to cause serious offence to many adults because it was clear that she was taking a photograph of her genitalia and that the image of the woman exposing herself on the ladder in poster ad (b) was likely to cause serious or widespread offence because, although her breasts were only partially visible, the image showed her exposing herself to a surveillance camera. We were further concerned that the images of young women photographing their genitalia and exposing their breasts to a camera in a public place were unsuitable to be displayed on posters, an untargeted medium that was likely to be seen by children, because of the overt sexualisation involved in the depicted acts.

We concluded that the content of the posters was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to adults in an untargeted medium and was unsuitable to be seen by children.

On this point, posters (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency).

We noted magazine ads (c) and (d) were unlikely to be seen by children because the publications were aimed specifically at adults. We also noted the editorial content of those magazines included material that covered sexual themes and considered that, in the context of the rest of the magazines contents, the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to readers of Dazed and Confused and Grazia.

On this point, we investigated magazine ads (c) and (d) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency) but did not find them in breach.

3. Upheld

We noted the image of the woman alone in a field with the lion in poster ad (a) was surreal and stylized and considered that, because of the surreal setting, the image was unlikely to be seen to condone or encourage people to expose themselves in public. We therefore considered that the ad was unlikely to encourage or condone anti-social behaviour.

However, we noted the image in poster ad (b) appeared realistic and considered that the image portrayed socially challenging actions that might be attractive to younger consumers who would be interested in the youthful and edgy fashion range and might encourage behaviour that was anti-social or irresponsible. Although magazine ad (c) portrayed the same image as poster ad (b), we considered that readers of Dazed and Confused magazine would interpret the ad within the context of the whole magazine and would see it as a tongue-in-cheek comment on society rather than an encouragement of anti-social behaviour.

Although we understood some readers might have found the image in magazine ad (d) distasteful, we considered that most readers of Grazia magazine would see the action as playful and, even if emulated, would be unlikely to view it as anti-social. We concluded that magazine ad (d) did not condone or encourage anti-social behaviour

Poster ad (b) breached CAP Code clause 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour).

On this point we investigated poster ad (a) and magazine ads (c) and (d) under CAP Code clause 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour) but did not find them in breach.

Action

Ads (a) and (b) should not appear again in poster form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)