ASA Decides On News And Nudes
The row which has erupted between ITV and the BBC over news coverage (see News At Ten Slot Sparks Ratings War) has even dragged the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) into the fray.
The ASA received complaints from the BBC regarding advertisements placed by ITV in national and regional press for its TV news coverage. The adverts included statements such as “Nobody Does News Better” and “ITV News- the top stories; the best reporters; the UK’s favourite newscasters.”
The complainants objected that such claims of superiority could not be substantiated and cited research by RSGB showing that BBC news was stronger in certain key aspects than ITV. ITV retorted that it was surprised to be challenged on the basis of popularity, arguing piously that “popularity was not the ultimate measure of programme quality”.
Eyebrows were doubtless raised in ITV sales houses at this latter statement, and it did not save the ASA from having to wade through more independent research findings, lists of nominations and awards and details of news items which proved “superior” coverage, as both sides attempted to define what constituted quality.
In the end the Authority found that, at the time the advertisements ran, ITV did indeed have one whole award more than the BBC for news and current affairs. It also accepted that the advertisers had substantiated that they had the UK’s favourite newscasters surely a triumph for serious news journalism- and that claims such as “Nobody does it better” and “the top stories” would be seen as an expression of the advertisers’ opinion. The complaint was not upheld.
Some might express surprise at the unseemly behaviour of our two largest terrestrial broadcasters. Yet it seems that unseemly behaviour is becoming harder to define. Last month the ASA showed a mixed reaction to cases of bad language in ads and refused to uphold complaints about Vogue’s award-winning “Nipples” poster (see ASA Shows Mixed Response To Rude And Nude Ads).
This month, more naked flesh has been causing complaint, and once again the rulings have been mixed. Saxon House, a property development, generated complaints with its advertisements in the Independent and Sunday Times which pictured a couple in suggestive poses. In both photos the man was topless, and in one he was handcuffed while the woman, wearing a short dress, sat on a high stool, legs akimbo, to illustrate the caption “Twenty-four hour security”. In the other, he crouched on the floor, while she stood beside him carrying a horse bridle, saddle and stirrups and wearing a shirt cutaway to reveal the midriff, a tie, trousers and stilettos. The caption was “Great Transport”.
Despite the relatively small amounts of flesh on show, complainants found “the use of deviant sexual imagery to advertise an unrelated product demeaning and offensive.” The ASA agreed, despite the advertiser’s defence that “the sexual connotations were innocuous and light-hearted, not deviant.”
Another newspaper advert, this time on the front page of the Guardian and in PC Pro and advertising Hotdog, the film magazine from fledgling publishers I Feel Good, also ran into trouble for suggestive imagery. The ad showed the front cover of the magazine which showed actress Cameron Diaz with her hand inside her knickers, with text saying “Cameron ‘The Pleasure’s All Mine’ Diaz interview and poster”. Complainants objected that the advertisement was sexist and the reference to masturbation offensive. Once again, the ASA upheld the view that the adverts were likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
In contrast to the above rulings, complaints against RiverSoft recruitment agency’s London Underground poster, which showed a naked female buttock with the company’s logo on, were not upheld. The complainants thought the poster was gratuitously sexual, inappropriate and offensive, the advertisers said it was their most successful yet and that it had attracted mainly women, the poster contractors said they had no objection to it and had received no complaints, and the ASA said it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
Context played an important part in the ASA’s ruling on a Gay Men Fighting AIDS four page spread in Positive Nation, a magazine for people affected by HIV. Designed to inform people about the risks involved in the practice of “barebacking”, which the advert delicately described as “fucking without condoms”, it presented frank views in a fairly humorous way, and included explicit cartoons. The complainant felt that the treatment of the subject was irresponsible, but the ASA was convinced by the advertiser’s claims that careful research had proved that this was an effective way of putting across an important message. The complaint was not upheld, partly because, appearing in this particular magazine, it was unlikely to be seen by children.
These cases appear to show that stepping the wrong side of the ‘likely to cause serious or widespread offence’ line is more a matter of what is meant than what is said or shown. Unfortunately for advertisers this will always be ruled by other people’s perception. High street retailers Marks & Spencer appear to be the latest casualty in this case, despite having had their latest poster campaign vetted by various religious groups before launch. Their picture of the slightly mist-shrouded, back view of a nude woman, alone and in a non-sexual pose in the middle distance, has nevertheless been perceived as offensive in some areas, where it has been torn down or censored and has already attracted a sizeable pile of complaints for the ASA to investigate in its next report.
ASA: 020 7580 5555
Subscribers can access ten years of media news and analysis in the Archive