Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
On 18 July 2017, the ASA published a report on Gender Stereotyping called “Depictions, Perceptions and Harm”, which provides an evidence-based case for stronger regulation of ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics that might be harmful. Read the report here.
In response, CAP will develop new standards for the ASA to enforce and use the evidence to clarify standards that reflect some of the ASA’s existing positions. CAP will report publically on its progress before the end of 2017 and commits, as always, to delivering training and advice on the new standards before they come into force in 2018. In the meantime, the position reflected in the AOL below is current and the ASA will have regard to this guidance when investigating cases.
The ASA receives many complaints about the depiction of women in a sexual or objectifying way in advertising, and in recent years the ASA has also received a number of complaints about ads that sexualise men, or portray men as objects, though these remain in the minority.
Whilst depicting people in a sexual way is not always offensive or problematic, Sexualisation and gratuitous nudity in ads can often cause serious or widespread harm and offence.
Advertisers should avoid using sexualised imagery if this is irrelevant to the product, as this is likely to be considered offensive. In 2016 the ASA investigated an ad for a fast food company which featured two images of a woman wearing only underwear, a jacket and trainers. One image featured the woman sitting on the edge of the sofa with her cleavage emphasised, her hands between her legs and her mouth open in what appeared to be a sexual pose. As this sexualised image of a woman bore no relevance to the advertised product, the ASA considered that the ad objectified women and was likely to cause serious offence. (Harlequin Fast Food, 12 October 2016).
Using animation or fictional concepts is unlikely to get marketers off the hook; in 2013 the ASA upheld a complaint about an ad for propeller “stripper” featuring an illustration of a topless mermaid (Ambassador Marine Ltd, 24 July 2013).
If the use of nudity is relevant to the advertised product the ASA is less likely to uphold complaints; toiletries and lingerie are good examples of products for which nudity is likely to be acceptable. However, marketers should not take that to mean all risqué ads for those types of products will be acceptable. An ad for Playboy which appeared on public transport was considered to be overtly sexual, and likely to cause serious or widespread offence for featuring overtly sexual images of women in an untargeted medium. (Playboy TV UK Ltd, 07 November 2012).
Ads featuring suggestive or sexualised imagery of children, such as children in heavy make-up or provocative poses are always problematic and should not be used. See Children: Sexual Imagery.
Marketers should take care that depictions in ads do not objectify people. Objectification and sexualisation often overlap, and the ASA receives regular complaints in which women are objectified in a sexualised way.
Focussing on women’s bodies while obscuring their faces is likely to be seen as objectifying women. A complaint about a VOD ad for femfresh bikini line products was upheld by the ASA for being overly sexualised in a way that objectified women, because the ad featured sexualised dance moves, the clothes were revealing and the ad focused on the women’s crotches with relatively few shots of their faces (Church & Dwight UK Ltd t/a Femfresh, 12 July 2017). Similarly, in 2013 the ASA upheld a complaint about an online ad for a car featuring women dancing in burlesque style lingerie. It noted that the ad featured a number of shots of the women’s breasts and bottoms, but that their heads were obscured, and considered that this invited viewers to view the women as sexual objects. (Renault UK Ltd, 17 July 2013).
Innuendo and humour
Innuendo that is intended to be light-hearted can be acceptable but degrading language or visuals can offend, even if intended to be humorous. A radio ad for an electrical store in which the voiceover stated "Yes, everyone's going to Budd Electrical! It's B, U, double D and we all love a double D, right? ..." was ruled against by the ASA in 2016. Whilst the ad did not contain any nudity and was not overtly sexual presented women as sexual objects by inviting listeners to focus on their bra size, which was also unrelated to the service. (Budd Electrical Ltd, 07 September 2016). Similarly a complaint about an ad for wine which featured a cropped image of a woman’s torso accompanied by the text “taste the bush” was upheld by the ASA because the combination of concealing her face and the reference to her genitalia and oral sex was considered sexual objectification (Budge Brands Ltd t/a Premier Estates Wine, 04 November 2015)
Marketers should take care not to depict people in a demeaning, subservient, exploitative, degrading or humiliating ways because such approaches are likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
Because it is often difficult to judge whether ads are likely to offend, the Copy Advice team is always happy to give advice on potentially offensive ads.