Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A poster promoting a Nicki Minaj concert was seen on the platform of a metro station in Newcastle.
It featured an image of Nicki Minaj from the bust up, with her arms in the air, leaning against a wall. She appeared to be naked but was moderately covered in body paint. Her breasts were partially exposed.
Text stated "Nicki Minaj...Pink Friday: Reloaded Tour 2012".
Issue
One complainant challenged whether the ad was:
1. irresponsible because it featured nudity and was therefore unsuitable for display in an untargeted medium where it could be seen by children; and
2. offensive because it objectified women.
Response
1. Live Nation stated that the ad did not feature nudity. Instead they explained that the ad featured an image of Nicki Minaj wearing a nude bikini, which had been cropped to show only her head, shoulders and half of her bikini top. They provided a copy of the original image before it had been cropped, which they said established that the image did not expose Minaj's breasts.
Live Nation also explained that they took compliance with the CAP Code seriously and strived to ensure all of their advertising was socially responsible. They said the ad had been reviewed by their agency's internal review team and approved by their in-house marketing team. They also said it had been cleared by the media owner, CBS Outdoor.
2. Live Nation stated that the ad did not in any way present women as objects. They said they considered objectification as an attitude that regarded a person as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality. In contrast, they said Minaj's persona was central to the image and the ad. They explained that the photograph had been taken during the photo shoot for Minaj's Reloaded Tour in which she was painted in a multitude of colours. They therefore considered that the photo shoot and the depiction of Minaj were in keeping with the image Minaj had created of herself; as a woman known for her fondness of bright colours and bold prints.
Further, they asserted that because the image was so stylised, it was not offensive or demeaning to women. They again argued that as it did not include any nudity, no allusions to sex and no innuendos, it could not be regarded as offensive or as objectifying women.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
We acknowledged that the original full length image clearly showed that Minaj had been wearing nude underwear when she posed for the photo. We considered, however, that the way the image had been cropped gave the impression that Minaj was topless, or that a large portion of her breasts were exposed, because it was not clear from the image that she was wearing a bra. We noted that the pose Minaj had adopted in the image, with her hands above her head, gave greater prominence to her breasts. We considered, however, that despite her pose, and the fact that most consumers would believe that her breasts were partially exposed, the image was only mildly sexual in nature. We therefore considered that it was not unsuitable to be shown on a poster site that could be seen by children.
On that point, we investigated the ad 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. (Responsible advertising), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
As set out in point one, we considered that the image was only mildly sexual in nature. Similarly, we did not consider that the image or the ad as a whole was sexually suggestive and we therefore considered that the ad was not degrading to women and did not objectify them. Whilst we acknowledged that the ad might be distasteful to some, we concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On that point, we investigated the ad 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.
