Two poster ads, viewed in March 2012, advertising SKYN condoms:
a. One poster was headlined Love sex. Hate condoms. Love SKYN. Further text stated This changes everything. SKYN condoms are made from a revolutionary new material Polyisoprene, to revolutionise your sex life.
b. Another poster was headlined Roll on better sex. Further text stated This changes everything. SKYN condoms are made from a revolutionary new material Polyisoprene, to revolutionise your sex life. Issue
Twenty-four complaints challenged whether ad (a) was:
1. offensive; and
2. inappropriately placed where it could be seen by children.
Two complainants challenged whether ad (b) was:
3. offensive; and
4. inappropriately placed where it could be seen by children. CAP Code (Edition 12) 1.34.1 Response
Ansell Ltd stated that there was a higher possibility of public complaints being received because of the product being advertised and stated that there would always be people who would be offended by any mention of condoms and contraception. They believed, however, that this was significantly outweighed by the benefit to society in reducing teenage and unwanted pregnancy and in reducing sexually transmitted diseases. They believed it was important that such products were allowed to be mass-marketed to reach the maximum number of possible consumers and also that the product would encourage the use of condoms.
They additionally stated that there would inevitably be people, including parents of young children or those with certain religious beliefs, who would not want to see any advertising for sexual wellness products. They believed, however, that it was important that people had the opportunity to be informed about sexual wellness products. They also stated that they did not believe the ads were overtly sexual, degrading to women or likely to encourage promiscuity.
They stated that neither ad was placed within the 100 m of a school and that the ads were not placed near churches.
ASA Assessment: Complaints Not Upheld
1 & 3 Not upheld
The ASA noted both ads included the prominent use of the word sex alongside an image of the head and shoulders of a woman who appeared to be wearing only underwear. We acknowledged that the use of the word sex, the reference to condoms and the images of the women referred to sexual activity, but considered that the images were not sexually explicit and the overall tone of the ads was not provocative. We acknowledged that some consumers would find the posters distasteful because of the overt references to sex and sexual activity. However, we considered that, in the context of ads for condoms, the images and text in the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find them in breach.
2 & 4 Not upheld
We noted both ads included the prominent use of the word sex alongside an image of the head and shoulders of a woman who appeared to be wearing only underwear. We also noted the use of the word sex, the reference to condoms and the images of the women referred to sexual activity. We considered that it was acceptable to use a reference to sex to promote condoms on a poster provided that it was not done in a way that was sexually provocative, but nevertheless considered that the direct reference to sexual activity meant that the posters were unsuitable to be placed in those locations where they were most likely to be seen by children. We noted Ansell had imposed a placement restriction on the ads meaning that they would not be positioned within 100 m of any school. We therefore considered that the ads were responsibly placed.
On this point we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code rule 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find them in breach.
A representative for freedom of the media at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said that governments across the world are posing a threat to internet freedom. The governments in the US and UK, known for their willingness to blame their political partners for violating human rights and freedoms, have turned out to be particular tough in suppressing internet freedom.
