A TV ad and a digital poster, for H&M’s Super Push Bra, viewed in December 2011:
a. The TV ad showed a woman dancing in her underwear. The model looked down at her chest and at the camera. On-screen text stated Super Push Bra ฃ9.99.
The ad was cleared by Clearcast without a timing restriction.
b. The digital poster featured three separate images of a woman wearing her underwear and each was accompanied by text which stated SUPER PUSH BRA. ฃ9.99. The first image showed the model in an arced pose with her hands resting behind her head. The model had a playful expression on her face. The second image showed the model with her hands beside her head. Her eyes were shown to be looking towards the advertised product. The third image showed the model in an arced pose. Her eyes were looking directly out from the image and she had a sultry expression on her face.
- Three complainants objected that the TV ad was offensive.
- Three complainants objected that the TV ad was unsuitable to be broadcast at times when children might be watching.
- One complainant objected that the digital poster was indecent and offensive.
- One complainant objected that the digital poster was not suitable for display in locations where children could see it.
H & M said the ad showed a bra from their underwear range. They said they had chosen to show the bra on the model to demonstrate the uplifting effect of the bra. They said it was their intention to show the function of the garment in a playful way, but did not intend for the ad to be deemed indecent or offensive.
Clearcast said they did not believe the ad required a timing restriction because the model was not acting in a provocative manner. They said the model was modelling underwear which demonstrated the enhanced cleavage that the bra could achieve. They said the model was shown enjoying herself to uplifting music. In that context, they believed the tone of the ad was fun and playful.
ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the ad was for a push-up bra and the model was shown to caress her body, wink and blow a kiss to the viewer. In one scene the model was shown to look towards the advertised product before holding a sustained look directly towards the viewer. The ad did not, however, include any explicit nudity and whilst we understood the ad might be viewed by some as sexually suggestive in nature, in the context of an ad for a bra, we considered it was not overtly sexual. Whilst we recognised that some people might find the ad distasteful, we considered the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We acknowledged the complainant’s concern that the ad was unsuitable for broadcast when children might be watching. However, as stated in point 1 , we noted the ad did not include any explicit nudity and whilst we understood the ad might be viewed by some as sexually suggestive in nature, in the context of an ad for a bra, we considered it was not overtly sexual.
We therefore considered the ad did not include anything that was likely to cause harm or distress to children or was otherwise unsuitable for them. On that basis, we concluded that the ad was suitable for broadcast without a timing restriction.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rule 32.3 (Scheduling of Television and Radio Advertisements) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted there was no explicit nudity in the ad, and that the ad was for a push-up bra. We considered the nature of the product meant that viewers of the ad were less likely to regard the ad as gratuitous or offensive. We noted the first image showed the model with her hands resting behind her head and with a playful expression on her face. We also noted the second image showed the model with her hands beside her head and her gaze towards the advertised product. We again considered the model’s facial expression to be playful. We noted the third image showed the model in an arced pose which accentuated her hip. We considered the pouted lips and the fact that the model was looking directly at the viewer gave the model a sultry expression. Whilst we understood the ads might be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature and therefore distasteful, we concluded that the images in the ad were playful and were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.
4. Not upheld
We considered the ad might be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature. However, we considered that the images were not overtly sexual in nature. We therefore concluded that ad (b) was acceptable for use in outdoor media likely to be seen by children.
On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find it in breach.
Melon Farmers Latest
