Poles Apart...Advert Censors whinge at trivial innuendo in a fishing magazine

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  asa.org.uk

An ad in Match Fishing magazine, headed BROKEN YOUR POLE? , included an image of a woman, seen from behind, wearing only a bra and thong. Her hands were placed on her buttocks, and half of a broken pole was superimposed into each hand. Text underneath the image stated DON’T DESPAIR WE CAN REPAIR! Crushed or broken sections, split or worn joints, full pole refurbishment. All repairs using high-grade carbon cloth and fully guaranteed . A complainant challenged whether: the ad was offensive, because it was overtly sexual and demeaning to women, particularly those who were interested in angling, and because it bore no relationship to the service advertised; and the ad was irresponsible, because it was inappropriately placed in a magazine that might be read by children. Esselle Pole Repairs (Esselle) said they had been placing the ad in four different magazines since 2006 without objection from the magazines or members of the public. The publisher of the magazine, David Hall Publishing (DHP), said the ad had been appearing in two of their angling magazines since 2006. ASA Assessment Complaint Upheld 1. Upheld The ASA noted the ad featured an image of an almost-naked woman, and that, although the image was not sexually explicit, it had sexual connotations. We noted the image bore no real relevance to the advertised services, and considered it was likely to be seen to degrade and demean women by linking pole-dancing to fishing-pole repairs. We concluded the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some people. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence). 2. Upheld We noted the complainant had purchased the magazine for her young daughter, who was involved in a junior angling club. We considered it likely that children would represent only a small proportion of the readership of the magazine but nonetheless considered that the ad was not suitable to be published in a magazine where it could be viewed by children. We concluded the ad was irresponsible. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising).