ASA Ruling on Spearmint Rhino Companies (Europe) Ltd
Spearmint Rhino Companies (Europe) Ltd
161 Tottenham Court Road
London
W1T 7NN
Date:
19 June 2013
Media:
Digital outdoor
Sector:
Leisure
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A13-227708
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both were Not upheld.
Ad
A poster for Spearmint Rhino gentleman's club displayed images of two women visible from the waist up. One woman wore a small bikini top. The second image showed a woman wearing long gold gloves and a low cut top with most of her chest covered by her hair.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the ad was offensive and unsuitable for public display because of the sexual imagery and the nature of the advertised product; and
2. the ad was irresponsible, because it appeared where it could be seen by children.
Investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) 4.1 (Harm and offence).
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
Spearmint Rhino Companies (Europe) Ltd (Spearmint Rhino) said they had no issue with the ad because it was not offensive in any way, shape or form.
The publisher, Outdoor Plus said no placement restrictions were applied to the ad. They said the placement of the ad was suitable because it was not considered inappropriate.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted one model's pose was sultry but not excessively sexual and her hair covered most of her chest area. We noted the other model wore a small bikini, her pose revealed one side of her breast and her posture drew attention to her breasts. However, we considered the pose was unlikely to be regarded by most members of the public as anything more than mildly sexual in nature. Although we considered that some members of the public would find the image, and indeed the product it advertised, distasteful, we did not consider that the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted the ad was not given a placement restriction and considered because the ad was sexually suggestive, rather than overtly sexual it was inappropriate for children to see and therefore it warranted a placement restriction to prevent it from being displayed within 100 m of schools. Because the ad was placed away from schools or business that provided children-based services, albeit unintentionally, we concluded the ad was not irresponsible.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
