Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for Ann Summers seen in January 2023 opened with text stating “Ann Summers presents” followed by a series of dance routines featuring television personality, Tasha Ghouri, and five backing dancers. Ms Ghouri was seen wearing several lingerie outfits, including suspender belts and thong-style knickers. The other dancers were wearing pink bodysuits and legwarmers with fluffy tails, collars and masks partially covering their faces and bunny ears.
The ad featured some close-up images of the women while they danced, at times showing Ms Ghouri’s partially exposed bottom. The final scene showed Ms Ghouri pointing at the camera, before blowing a kiss and winking, and all the dancers whooping and cheering together at the end. On-screen text stated “MAKE YOUR POWER MOVE VALENTINE’S 2023” and “Ann Summers ONLINE INSTORE EVENTS”. A song in the background featured the lyrics “better make your move” and “touch me one more time”.
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ‘ex-kids’ scheduling restriction, which meant that it should not be shown in or around programmes made for, specifically targeted at or likely to appeal to children.
Issue
The ASA received 19 complaints.
1. Some of the complainants, who believed the ad sexualised and objectified women, challenged whether it was irresponsible, harmful and offensive.
2. Some of the complainants, who believed the ad should not be broadcast during times when children were likely to be watching, challenged whether the scheduling restriction was sufficient.
Response
1. Ann Summers Ltd believed that the ad was not socially irresponsible and that it showed happy, empowered women having fun in a non-sexual way.
Clearcast did not believe the ad objectified or sexualised women. They said it celebrated women of all body types. The purpose of the ad, emphasised by the slogan “make your power move”, was to empower women to act however, and wear whatever, they liked, particularly on and around Valentine’s Day. It highlighted how women should be free to wear whatever lingerie they liked without being sexualised by men.
2. Ann Summers believed the ad was not sexually suggestive. They said that the most revealing shot of Ms Ghouri’s bottom in the ad was fleeting and that it was not shown in a sexualised manner. They said that it was not socially irresponsible for children to see bottoms because they regularly saw them and it was very unlikely that the non-sexual content of the ad could distress children, cause them harm, or be considered unsuitable for them.
Ann Summers said that they had not received any complaints about the ad. They had asked broadcasters to target the ad at women aged 18-44 years and they therefore believed children would have been unlikely to see it. They understood that the ad had been shown during shows that would not be likely to appeal to children.
Clearcast believed that an ‘ex-kids’ restriction was appropriate. They said that some ads for underwear warranted a higher restriction because they were raunchier or featured sex toys alongside the clothing, and that in those cases a post-9 pm restriction was necessary. They had assessed the ad to be significantly milder in nudity and sexual nature compared to TV ads for other underwear brands that had previously been given stricter scheduling restrictions. Clearcast considered that it was appropriate to give an ‘ex-kids’ restriction to ads which featured only mild nudity such as bare bottoms.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA accepted that, as the ad was for women’s lingerie, it was understandable that it would feature models wearing lingerie. The backing dancers were all wearing bodysuits which resembled ballet leotards. They were dancing in high heels, but also wore leg warmers, an item typically worn by dancers. Although they were dressed in a style reminiscent of Playboy bunnies, including cuffs, collars, fluffy tails and masks with bunny ears (which partially obscured their faces), we considered they were not presented in an overly sexual way. We considered the style of dancing in the ad was light-hearted and the dance moves were non-sexual. We also considered the women appeared to be having fun on their own terms, and that the overall impression was one of female empowerment.
Ms Ghouri was seen wearing several lingerie sets from the Ann Summers range, which included body suits, lacy bras and suspenders. However, we did not consider that the lingerie was particularly revealing, except for some thong-style knickers which partially exposed her bottom. There were some shots of her dancing from behind whilst wearing the thong-style knickers, but we considered those scenes were fleeting. We therefore considered that the ad did not objectify Ms Ghouri or the other dancers.
For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was not irresponsible, harmful or likely to cause serious or widespread offence on the grounds of sexualisation or objectification.
On that point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 4.2 and 4.14 (Harm and Offence), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We understood that a scheduling restriction had been applied to the ad at the time it was cleared by Clearcast, which meant that it should not be transmitted in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal to children under 16.
We acknowledged that the application of that scheduling restriction by Clearcast would limit the number of children likely to view the ad and we understood that the restriction had been applied because of the level of nudity in it. Although some scenes showed Ms Ghouri’s partially exposed bottom, which were a brief focus at certain points during the dance routine, we considered the style of dancing in the ad was light-hearted and the dance moves were non-sexual. We did not consider the nudity to be gratuitous, nor that these scenes which were fleeting, were inappropriate in the context of an ad promoting lingerie. We therefore considered that the ‘ex-kids’ scheduling restriction was sufficient.
On that point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 (Harm and Offence) and 32.3 (Scheduling), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
