Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
Two outdoor posters on the London Underground for Figleaves.com, an online underwear retailer:
a. A poster featured a blonde woman wearing a red bra and knickers, standing with her hands on her hips and looking suggestively towards the camera. The phrase 'LIKE ME?' in large, pink letters was stamped across the middle of the poster, and 'VOTE FOR ME' in smaller letters appeared in the top left-hand corner. The ad included social media links and Figleaves website address.
b. A poster featured a man in red boxer shorts looking suggestively towards the camera. The phrase 'LIKE ME?' in large, red letters was stamped across the middle of the poster, and 'VOTE FOR ME' in smaller letters in the top left-hand corner. Social media links and a web address were included.
Issue
The ASA received four complaints.
1. Three complainants challenged whether ad (a) was unsuitable for display where children could see it.
2. One of those complainants challenged whether ad (b) was unsuitable for display where children could see it.
3. Two complainants challenged whether ad (a) was offensive because they believed it degraded women by portraying them as sexual objects.
Response
J D Williams & Company Ltd (Figleaves) said the ads were subject to a placement restriction which kept them 100 m away from schools, a restriction to which Figleaves ensured was strictly adhered. They said the ads only appeared alongside escalators on the Tube or opposite Tube train platforms.
Figleaves said the purpose behind the campaign was to generate "Likes" on Facebook to stimulate traffic through their Facebook page. Both ads included prominent references to Facebook and to Facebook "Likes". They said the strap line was very much in the vein of "Vote for me", rather than any suggestion of desire or sexual attraction.
Figleaves believed the ads were tasteful shots of fashion lingerie and disagreed with the complainants' view that ad (a) was degrading to women. They said neither of the ads were salacious or suggestive and they did not believe the ads were irresponsible or offensive.
CBS Outdoor said they sought CAP Copy Advice on the ads and were advised that they were likely to be acceptable under the Code, without a 100 m placement restriction. They displayed 450 ads and had received one complaint.
Assessment
1. & 2. Not upheld
The ASA noted the ads were for a lingerie company and we recognised that their advertising would understandably feature a model wearing lingerie. In this instance, the female model was wearing a matching bra and knickers set and the male model was wearing boxer shorts. The ads did not show nudity and the images were relevant to Figleaves, although we understood that the ads may not appeal to everyone.
We noted the ads only appeared alongside escalators on the Tube or opposite Tube train platforms. The Facebook branding appeared in the posters and we considered that the vast majority of the adult audience were likely to be familiar with the concept of "Liking" brands on Facebook and likely to make that connection when they saw the ads. Facebook required account holders to be 13 years of age or over and because of that, we considered younger children may not understand that connection. Notwithstanding that, we considered the strap line "LIKE ME?" was unlikely to be seen by children as one about the models' attractiveness or sexuality.
We considered the expression in both models' eyes and their poses were no more than mildly sexual and as such, we considered the ads were not unsuitable to be displayed where they could be seen by children. We noted Figleaves had applied a 100 m placement restriction on the ads, which we considered more than adequate. We therefore concluded their placement was not socially irresponsible.
On these points, we investigated both ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility) but did not find them in breach.
3. Not upheld
The ad did not include anything which was overtly sexual and as stated above, we considered that the vast majority of the adult audience were likely to understand the connection between "LIKE ME?" and Facebook. We considered the strap line together with the image in ad (a) was unlikely to be seen as portraying women as sexual objects to be desired. We therefore concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
(Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
