ASA Don’t Like Puerile Whinges…Advert censors dismisses complaints about underwear ads on the underground

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

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. Three complainants challenged whether ad (a) was unsuitable for display where children could see it. One of those complainants challenged whether ad (b) was unsuitable for display where children could see it. Two complainants challenged whether ad (a) was offensive because they believed it degraded women by portraying them as sexual objects. ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld 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 rule 1.3 (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 rule 4.1 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.

Good Clean Fun…ASA dismisses whinges about a series of Lynx shower gel adverts

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk See video from YouTube

Seventeen interactive ads on video on demand (VOD), on You Tube and Facebook, and cinema screens for Lynx shower gel. Eg VOD ads: a. An ad showed five women with the voice-over referring to each one in turn as either party girl , high maintenance girl , brainy girl , flirty girl or sporty girl . The screen became static showing pictures of the five women with their names next to them. Text stated WHAT’S YOUR TYPE? CLICK ON A GIRL TO SEE HER FILM. KEEP UP WITH LYNX SHOWER GELS . b. Clicking on PARTY GIRL took the viewer through to a video ad showing a man and woman dancing in a domestic setting. The voice-over stated, If you’re the kind of guy who finds himself still up at 7.30 am dancing in the smouldering wreckage of his apartment, you’re probably going out with a party girl. Keep going and she’ll grant you access to her VIP area. Keep going with Lynx Fever. On-screen text stated KEEP YOUR PARTY GIRL HAPPY . 17 complainants saw the ads on various media All 17 complainants considered the ads were sexist, objectified women and were demeaning to women, and challenged whether the ads were offensive. Four of the complainants also challenged whether the ads were offensive, because they portrayed men as sexually obsessed, manipulative and devious. Unilever said the cinema ads were given a U rating, with the exception of Party Girl which was given a PG rating. They said two of the VOD executions were given a post 7.30pm timing restriction which they said demonstrated the clearance bodies believed the ads were suitable for viewing by a broad audience. Unilever believed the ads had been prepared with a sense of responsibility and were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. They believed the number of complaints received (17) compared to the number of people who saw the ad – which was 10.4 million impressions across VOD and paid-for online space, and a combined audience of approximately 19 million people at the cinema – was very small. They believed that showed the ads had not caused serious or widespread offence. Facebook reviewed the ads and were satisfied that they complied with their applications policy. YouTube said none of the ads would have violated their advertising policies. ASA Assessment: Complaints Not Upheld 1. Not Upheld The ASA understood the ads’ scenarios were based on the two ideas that people have certain types to whom they are attracted and that in the early stages of dating, everyone adapts their behaviour to some extent in order to impress their partner. The women were identified as one of five types based on their interests and the viewers or cinema audience (whereby the cinema recorded which ad received the most cheers from the audience) could choose to see an ad based on the type of girl in whom they were interested. Complainants were concerned that the women appeared to be treated as sexual objects which could be chosen and their treatment in the ads was degrading. In the context of dating, we considered viewers were likely to see the ads as illustrating that some people were attracted to others with particular traits, characteristics or interests; something with which we considered viewers would be familiar. While the idea of choosing a type may be distasteful, in the context of the ads the women were unlikely to be seen as objects and therefore, we considered on that basis, the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. The ads were told from the man’s perspective of the date and commented on the dynamic of the couple’s relationship. However, the women were not depicted in a negative light and they were not shown in an overtly sexual manner. The ads referred to the sexuality of the couple’s relationship using innuendo to infer that if the men acted in a certain way they would be rewarded sexually. We recognised that the humour would not be to everyone’s taste but we concluded the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. 2. Not Upheld We understood the ads were intended to present an exaggerated view of dating from a male perspective during which the men adapted their behaviour to impress their girlfriends. Some complainants believed the ads portrayed men in a negative light showing them to be sexually obsessed and behaving in a devious and manipulative way. We noted the ads showed each of the men doing things they may not willingly choose to do in order to impress their girlfriends with the ultimate goal that they would be rewarded sexually. We considered their behaviour in that context would be seen by some viewers as portraying men in a negative light. However, as mentioned above in point one, we considered that humour would not appeal to everyone and that some viewers may find it crass. Nonetheless, we considered the scenarios played out in the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to viewers. On both points, we investigated the ads under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 4.1 (Harm and offence) and 30.3 (VOD appendix) but did not find them in breach.

Oops We’ve Done It Again…Table dancing Club Oops gets a second poster banned by the advert censor

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A poster, seen on various telephone boxes in East London, stated New Club Oops..! Bar & Club … Corporate Gentleman’s Entertainment Attitude & Class Does Matter…! . The ad featured an image in negative of a woman from the waist down who, with the exception of high heels and a visible underwear waistband, appeared to be naked. Issue Four complainants challenged whether the poster was offensive, sexist and degrading to women. Two complainants challenged whether the poster was unsuitable for public display where it could be seen by children. One complainant stated the poster had been placed within 100 m of a primary school. ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld The ASA acknowledged that Club Oops’s recent advertising campaign had come to an end and that InFocus Media had agreed to remove the remaining few posters which still appeared. We noted that the image just showed the lower half of a woman, from the waist down, naked except for some high heels and an underwear waistband. Whilst the image showed the woman wearing underwear, we noted that her buttocks were clearly visible, and considered that the image was provocative and sexually suggestive. In addition, we considered that a number of consumers were likely to believe that the image of just the lower half of a woman was unduly explicit and degrading to women. We considered the image was overtly sexual in nature and was likely to cause serious and widespread offence. We therefore concluded that it was unsuitable for public display, especially where it could be seen by children. The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

ASA’s Top 10 Adverts of 2012…ASA publishes its annual report covering activities in 2012

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Annual Report 2012 [pdf] from asa.org.uk

The Annual report speaks little of censorship issues beyond a few general paragraphs about pandering to the sexualisationists, particularly for outdoor advertising. The ASA continue to provide the their 10 best adverts of the year as judged by the number of complaints. Note that this year the numbers may be reduced because the ASA web page for complaints, now indicates when the ASA has received enough complaints (about 100) about a particular advert. Gocompare.com 1008 complaints: Not upheld This TV ad, one of a series for the price comparison website, featured the former footballer Stuart Pearce kicking a football into the stomach of an opera singer. We ruled that the ad was not offensive, irresponsible or harmful, because the ad was not explicit or gruesome, and would be seen as light-hearted and comical. Gocompare.com 797 complaints: Not upheld Another TV ad for the price comparison website, this time featuring Sue Barker taking aim and shooting the main character with a rocket launcher. We ruled the ads was not offensive or harmful because it showed over-the-top and fantastical behaviour and would be seen as light-hearted and comical. We also noted that the main character was shown unharmed at the end of the ad. ASDA 620 complaints: Not upheld This TV ad, which featured a mother carrying out various tasks in preparation for Christmas, prompted complaints it was sexist. We did not uphold the complaints. We also rejected complaints that the ad was offensive to single fathers or men who played a primary domestic role. We thought the ad reflected ASDA’s view of the Christmas experience for a significant number of their customers. Channel Four 373 complaints: Upheld in part A series of ads for the TV programme My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, appearing on posters and in national and regional press and magazines, prompted complaints that they were offensive, racist and unfairly denigrated and degraded Gypsy and Traveller communities. After a request from the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications to re-open our investigation, we agreed that some of the images together with the accompanying text were offensive and irresponsible. Kerry Foods 371 complaints: Upheld in part We did not uphold complaints that the nudity in a TV ad for Richmond Ham was offensive. However, we agreed with complainants that referring to the product as Britain’s only ham would be interpreted as meaning the product was British in origin, when that was not the case. Paddy Power 311 complaints: Out of remit We received complaints that an online ad on Paddy Power’s YouTube channel was offensive to members of the transgender community. The channel was registered in Ireland, and so it fell outside of our remit. We did however uphold a small number of complaints about the same ad which appeared on TV. (= 7th) Kellogg’s 234 complaints: Not upheld We did not uphold complaints that a TV ad for breakfast cereal showing a man being attacked by a snake was unduly distressing. We acknowledged that some viewers might find the theme of the ad distasteful, but that most would view it as comical rather than graphic. (= 7th) Wm Morrison Supermarkets 234 complaints: Not upheld This TV ad prompted a number of complaints that it was irresponsible and harmful because it implied that it was acceptable to feed Christmas pudding to dogs. We didn’t think the ad implied it was acceptable to copy this behaviour, as the dog did not eat the pudding. Also dog owners would be aware of the toxicity of grapes, raisins and other foods to their pets Kayak Software Corporation 189 complaints: Upheld in part We ruled that this TV ad showing a man receiving brain surgery would be likely to cause distress without justifiable reason especially to viewers who had been affected by the type of operation depicted in the ad. We did not uphold complaints that the ad was offensive in general. St John Ambulance 144 complaints: Not upheld We did not uphold the complaints about this TV ad, which showed a man and his family coping with his diagnosis, treatment and eventual recovery from cancer, only for him to die by choking to death on a piece of food. Although distressing in its portrayal, we felt the overall message of the ad (that the relatively simple techniques of first aid could avoid sudden tragedy), was justifiable.

Whingers Give it Their Best Shot…ASA clears heavily edited advert for Bullet to the Head shown during sports programmes

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A TV ad featured various scenes from the film Bullet to the Head including Sylvester Stallone shooting a gun and blowing up vehicles. Another scene showed Stallone and another man preparing to fight each other with axes. Stallone was also shown kicking something aggressively and aiming and shooting a gun at something off-screen. The voice-over stated, On February 1st, it’s killer versus killer. Sylvester Stallone is back to his best. Bullet to The Head. In cinemas February 1st. Issue Seven complainants objected that the ad was inappropriately scheduled at a time when it might be seen by children. Clearcast said the ad was given an ex-kids restriction and that this was achieved after a lot of editing of versions of the ad which had been given a post 21.00 or a post 19.30 restriction. They believed this was an appropriate restriction and was in line with offerings from other stars like Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwartzenegger which had recently been approved. Assessment: Complaints not upheld We noted the ad was given an ex-kids restriction which meant it should not be broadcast around programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal to persons below the age of 16. Whilst the complainants reported that their children had seen the ad during sports programming, football matches and other programming, audience figures for those programmes showed that the vast majority of viewers were over 16. We therefore considered that the given restriction had been correctly applied by the broadcasters. The ad featured an actor made famous during action films of the 1980s. We considered that whilst the film might have been of particular appeal to viewers who had watched those films during that decade, he would be unfamiliar to any children who may be watching and therefore the film and the ad were unlikely to be of appeal to them. The ad featured images of shooting, fighting and explosions and whilst they were presented realistically, the images were fleeting and no one was shown to be physically hurt through any of the actions. We acknowledged that some viewers found the ad unsuitable for broadcast when their children were watching, but concluded that the ex-kids restriction was sufficient. We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 32.3 (Scheduling) but did not find it in breach.

Only Suitable for Ex-Kids…ASA finds that TV adverts for Texas Chainsaw should have played later in the evening

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

Eleven TV ads, a radio ad, a poster and an internet display ad, for the film Texas Chainsaw 3D. Examples: a. The first TV ad, which lasted 10 seconds, started with a record spinning followed by a close-up of a man’s hands holding a needle in front of a desk. On the desk was a set of false teeth, and a mirror which reflected the lower part of a man’s face. A clip showed a man pulling a mask over his face, followed by on-screen text which stated IT’S HAPPENING AGAIN . Footage showed a bloodied chainsaw being taken from a shelf, followed by a metal sliding door slamming shut. Text on a bloodied background stated TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D . The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction. i. The ninth TV ad, which lasted 20 seconds, began with a blonde woman running through a field and onto a road and attempting to flag down a car. A female voice sobbed He was trying to kill me . On-screen text stated 1974 . Footage showed the same woman with cuts and blood on her head, screaming, followed by a man holding a chainsaw over his head. On-screen text stated 2013 . A clip showed a metal sliding door slamming shut, followed by a man’s figure silhouetted by the lights of a vehicle and the sound of a chainsaw. A man’s voice said, Did you get a good look at him? A woman in a striped top said, He was wearing a face, a human face as clips showed a box containing wires being opened, a close-up of a man’s hands holding a needle in front of a desk, and a man pulling a mask over his face. On-screen text stated THE MOST … CELEBRATED … HORROR FRANCHISE … LIVES ON . A series of short clips, interposed between the text, showed: a close-up of a chainsaw; a man and a woman standing in front of a building, with the man saying Who is that? ; a vehicle being driven through the wall of a building where a woman and a man holding a spade were standing; a man with a chainsaw approaching a woman; a woman screaming; a man using a chainsaw to cut through a wire fence; the woman in the striped top standing against a wire fence looking scared; a policeman standing in front of a house which was on fire; a man dragging a woman along the ground; a figure with a chainsaw running through a crowded fairground at night; and a man using a bloodied chainsaw to smash in the window of a vehicle with two women screaming inside. The sounds of women screaming and a chainsaw were heard over the latter clips. Footage then showed a woman with her arms tied up above her, from behind, with a chainsaw being held against her shoulder, and then a clip of her from the front, gagged with gaffer tap and screaming. Text on a bloodied background stated TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D . The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post-9pm restriction. The ASA received 73 complaints: Complainants challenged whether ads were distressing, harmful, offensive and inappropriately scheduled. One complainant challenged whether the poster ad was offensive, inappropriate for public display and likely to condone or encourage violence. One complainant challenged whether the internet display ad was inappropriate for display on a webpage which advertised a PG-rated film. ASA Decision: Complaints Upheld in Part The ASA acknowledged that ads (a) to (d) did not include any scenes of interpersonal violence and did not include any sound effects of screaming or noises which suggested interpersonal violence. However, we noted ads (b) and (c) showed a close-up of a woman screaming in a darkly lit, enclosed space, that ad (c) included a voice-over of the woman stating He was wearing a face, a human face as footage showed a man putting a mask to his face, and ad (d) showed clips of a policeman standing watching a house which was engulfed in flames and a vehicle being driven through a wall towards two people (and towards the viewer). We considered it likely that those scenes could cause distress to young children. Furthermore, we considered the use of swift cuts, darkly lit scenes and eerie music and sound effects created a sinister, threatening and tension-filled atmosphere in all four ads which was likely to cause distress to young children. Whilst we noted the ads had been given an ex-kids restriction and therefore had not been broadcast around programmes of particular appeal to children, we considered that they were inappropriate for broadcast during the day when young children might be watching, and ads (a) to (d) should therefore have been given a post-7.30pm timing restriction. Complaints upheld in relation to ads (i) and (j) only. We considered all three ads featured scenes of violence and terror and had a sinister and threatening atmosphere produced by the swift cuts, sound effects and largely dark and poorly lit scenes. We acknowledged that the post-9pm timing restrictions meant it was unlikely that younger children would be exposed to the ads. However, we considered that the scenes in ads (i) and (j) which depicted a woman who was bound, gagged and terrified, screaming as a chainsaw was placed on her shoulder, were likely to distress some older children, because of the implication of extreme violence and torture. We therefore considered ads (i) and (j) should have been given a post-11pm timing restriction. We also considered the scenes in ads (i) and (j) were likely to be more in keeping with programme content seen after 11pm and we therefore considered those ads should not have been broadcast before 11pm in order to reduce the likelihood of causing offence or distress to adults. All other complaints were dismissed

It’s ASA’s Mind That’s the Problem…Advert censor bans adverts for Pussy energy drink

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

Two posters and a website promoted an energy drink: a. A poster, which appeared in various locations across the UK, stated pussy in large, bold text in the centre of the ad. Smaller text below stated The drink’s pure, it’s your mind that’s the problem”. Text on an image of the product stated “pussy natural energy” and text below the image stated “100% Natural Energy”. b. A second poster, which also appeared in various locations across the UK, stated “Outrageous” in large, bold text in the centre of the ad. Smaller text below stated “An energy drink that actually tastes good”. Large text to the left of the headline stated “pussy” and smaller text below stated “NATURAL ENERGY 100% Natural Ingredients”. c. Claims on http://www.pussydrinks.com stated “THE DRINK’S PURE It’s your mind that’s the problem. 100% Natural Energy”. Smaller text at the bottom of the home page stated “Our goal is Global Pussyfication and we aim to bring Pussy within everyone’s reach” and invited those interested in distributing the product to contact them. There were 156 complainants about the ads. Most complainants challenged whether ad (a) was offensive, because they considered it implied a sexually explicit reference. Some complainants also considered it was derogatory, sexist and degrading towards women. Some complainants also challenged whether ad (b) was offensive, on the same basis. Two complainants challenged whether ad (a) was offensive to those with religious beliefs and was unsuitable to be displayed near to a church. Many complainants also challenged whether ad (a) was unsuitable to appear where it could be seen by children. Some complainants challenged whether ad (b) was unsuitable to appear where it could be seen by children. Two complainants challenged whether ad (c) was offensive, because it implied a sexually explicit reference, was derogatory, sexist and degrading towards women. ASA Assessment 2,3,5,6: Not upheld 1. Upheld The ASA considered that some consumers would recognise that the term “pussy” had both a conventional and slang meaning and could therefore be understood to colloquially refer to the female genitals, as well as retaining the traditional meaning of ‘cat or kitten. We noted that ad (a) stated The drink’s pure, it’s your mind that’s the problem and considered that the ad consciously made reference to the dual meaning of the word pussy, including its colloquial meaning, which some would consider sexually explicit, as well as showing an awareness that the colloquial use of the term pussy might be considered impure or problematic, and could therefore cause offence. We acknowledged that 63 complainants had objected that the term pussy was, in itself, a derogatory and sexist term, which was particularly offensive to women. Although we considered that the colloquial meaning of pussy could be understood to be a sexually explicit term, we noted that the way in which the term pussy was used in the ads did not make express reference to women, beyond its colloquial meaning denoting the female genitals. We did not consider that ad (a) made particular reference to the behaviour or portrayal of women and, therefore, did not consider that, in that context, ad (a) was likely to be interpreted by most consumers as referring to or portraying women in a derogatory or sexist way. However, we nonetheless concluded that because ad (a) made express reference to the dual meaning of the word pussy , it would be understood to be intended as a sexually explicit reference which, in the context in which it appeared in ad (a), was likely to cause serious and widespread offence. On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 (Harm and offence). 4. Upheld We noted that there were no restrictions on the placement of ad (a) and it would be seen by children of all ages, but considered that very young children were unlikely to be aware of the colloquial meaning of pussy . We considered, however, that some older children were likely to know and understand that colloquial meaning or be aware that the term had a secondary meaning which had a different connotation or impact than simply meaning cat or kitten . We noted that the slogan in ad (a) stated The drink’s pure, it’s your mind that’s the problem and considered that strongly suggested that the term pussy had a secondary meaning which was not pure and was a problem , and considered that slogan reinforced the colloquial meaning of pussy to those older children or implied that that secondary, colloquial meaning was in some way impolite or even offensive or sexually explicit. We therefore considered that because ad (a) made express reference to the dual meaning of the word pussy , it would be understood by some older children to be intended as an offensive or sexually explicit reference, and concluded that ad (a) was unsuitable to appear where it could be seen by children. On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

About As Scary as Scooby Doo…ASA dismisses whinges about ghostly TV advert

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk See video from YouTube

A TV ad for a discount voucher website featured a group of young women exploring a dark old house. On-screen text stated 50% OFF GHOST TOURS whilst the girls, who appeared to be frightened, entered a room and saw a pale female ghost with her arms outstretched saying Wowcher in an eerie voice. The girls were shown screaming and running from the room. The ghost was then shown looking down at herself with a confused expression. On-screen text stated 80% OFF SPRAY TANS . The ad then showed a woman in front of her laptop and the voice-over stated, What will make you say ‘Wowcher’? Join wowocher.co.uk for free and we’ll email you a different deal every day. Get a wow a day at wowcher.co.uk . Two complainants, whose young children had been upset by the ad, objected that it had been inappropriately scheduled at a time when it was likely to be seen by children. ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld The ASA noted the ad presented the ghost, and the girls’ reaction to it, in an exaggerated and theatrical way and that it was clear from the presentation that it posed no real threat to them and that they were not genuinely scared. Furthermore, any potential fear previously created from the ghost’s initial appearance was removed when the character looked disappointed at its own appearance and the entire image was replaced with bright colours and a woman happily using her computer. We considered that many children would be used to programmes such as Scooby-Doo and therefore considered the comic presentation of ghosts and monsters, and the exaggerated fear of them, was something that they were likely to be familiar with. Although we acknowledged that some very young viewers might find the theme unsettling, we did not consider that the content or scheduling of the ad was likely to cause distress to children. We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 4.1 (Harm and offence), 5.1 (Children) and 32.3 (Scheduling) but did not find it in breach.

I Despair…Advert censor claims ludicrous widespread offence about trivially sexy fishing advert

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

An ad for Esselle Pole Repairs seen in Match Fishing magazine was headed BROKEN YOUR POLE? and featured 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 in each hand. A red CENSORED sign was placed over part of the image to obscure the woman’s buttocks. Further text 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 . One 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 said they covered up the image in the ad with the word CENSORED after a previous complaint about the ad, without this word, had been Upheld by the ASA. They did not believe the ad or the image was offensive. They said the placing of the word meant it was difficult to make out the image of the woman behind it, you could not clearly see what she was wearing, and the only parts of her body on show were her shoulder and leg. They did not believe the word censored could be overtly sexual, demeaning to women or irresponsible. ASA Assessment: Complaints Upheld 1. Upheld The ASA considered that, although large text stating CENSORED was placed vertically across it, the image in the ad was clearly of woman wearing only a bra and thong shown from behind. We considered that the text drew attention to the woman’s bottom and that, although it was not sexually explicit, the image had sexual connotations. It bore no real relevance to the advertised services, and we 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 previously 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 therefore concluded the ad was irresponsible. On this point the ad breached CAP Code rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising).

ASA Gets its Shit Together…Advert censor clears the use of the word ‘sh!t’ in a subscription email by Urban Outfitters

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

An e-mail from retailer Urban Outfitters, stated SORT OUT YOUR SH!T FOR 2013 with NEW AWESOME EVERYTHING … . Further text stated WATCH THIS SH!T next to an image of a cat peering into its litter tray in which 2013 was written in excrement. Issue A complainant challenged whether the language and imagery of cat excrement was offensive. URBN UK Ltd, trading as Urban Outfitters, said they were a trendy and fashionable clothing line with a street style attitude brand and that their customers were trend setting, creative individuals with a sense of humour and who liked to experiment. They also said customer surveys had ascertained that their key demographic was between the ages of 18 and 25 years. The ad was sent to their mailing list, which customers had to have signed up for and which they believed were likely to consist entirely of their core demographic. They said, although SH!T was a clear reference to the word SHIT , it was a less offensive spelling. The phrase SORT YOU SH!T OUT FOR 2013 WITH NEW AWESOME EVERYTHING! Referred to the common slang phrase get your shit together which meant getting yourself organised and that shit, in this context, referred to belongings or thoughts. They said their core demographic would not find the phrase offensive, because they believed it was commonly used in their everyday language and frequently appeared in other media. ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld The ASA considered that the references to SH!T were obvious derivatives of the swear word shit and that their intended meaning was clear. We considered that, while the language may have been considered distasteful, it was relatively mild. We also considered that readers were likely to interpret the image of cat excrement as a visual reference to the claims SORT OUT YOUR SH!T… and WATCH THIS SH!T and, while some may have considered it distasteful, it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. We had not seen any data regarding Urban Outfitters’ mailing list but several press articles suggested that their core demographic were students and young adults and we noted that their website, which was one of the means of signing up to the mailing list, clearly targeted a young adult audience. Although we considered that consumers generally would not expect to receive material that included expletives by virtue of signing up to a clothing retailer’s mailing list, we considered that the e-mail was unlikely to seriously offend recipients who had signed up to the Urban Outfitters’ mailing list or to cause widespread offence amongst them. We investigated under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.