ASA Shows Mixed Response To Rude And Nude Ads
Swearing. It’s not big, it’s not clever, but we all do it. But does that mean children should be exposed to it? This was one of the sticky issues faced by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) this month.
One of the rulings made by the ASA centred around the word “crap”. BBC 1 obviously deems the word fairly innocuous, as only this week a rookie Changing Rooms designer had her work described as “crap”, long before the watershed, by the far from grateful owner of the changed room. However, when the same word appeared in an advertisement for Chrysalis Radio Group’s Galaxy 105 station on buses and in the Metro, members of the public objected.
It seems that the advert in question not only used the word, but highlighted its original meaning, by showing a double ended toilet brush made to look like a cotton bud and the caption, “Wash the crap out of your ears.” In their defence, the advertisers quoted Broadcasting Standards Commission research, undertaken two years ago, which found that 45% of those surveyed thought “crap” was “quite mild” as a swear word, while 28% thought it didn’t constitute swearing at all. The advertisers also said that the humour in the advert was aimed at 20-29 year olds and that they didn’t think that children or other groups would be very offended.
The complaints were upheld, however, as the ASA pointed out that the choice of media guaranteed that the advertising would be seen by many who were outside the intended target audience. It considered that the word “crap” in conjunction with the image of a toilet brush was “likely to cause widespread offence”.
Harvey Nichols, the blue blooded department store, was also not above blue language in its latest advertising campaign. An advertisement in the Evening Standard showed a knitted toy which had smeared lipstick on its face, with the caption “Oh Shit”, while another in the Times had similar knitted toys fighting over a handbag with the caption “Bitch”. The advertisements attracted complaints from readers who thought that the captions were offensive and unsuitable for use alongside soft toys.
In the case of the Evening Standard complaint, the advertisers felt that the image was meant to be light-hearted, that the medium was not one aimed at children and that most people didn’t find the word “shit” as offensive as they had in the past. Although the ASA acknowledged the point that, despite the knitted toy, the advertisement had appeared in adult-targetted media. However, it upheld the complaint, considering that the word “shit” was likely to be seen as unacceptable by most readers and cause serious or widespread offence. A similar defence was given for the advertisement in the Times, however in that case the ASA did not uphold the complaints, instead accepting that the word “bitch” alongside the image of the toys fighting would be seen as humorous and unlikely to cause serious offence.
So “crap” and “shit” are not okay, but “bitch” is, as long as its funny. What about a picture of a nipple? Vogue.com’s advertising campaign, which used billboards and buses, featured a woman’s chest clad in a see-through top, with her clearly visible nipple forming the “dot” of the website address. This attracted 83 complaints from people all over the country who thought it was offensive, especially if children saw it.
Once again, the defence was that the campaign was intended to be “light-hearted”. Furthermore, said the advertisers, “The images of the stylishly clad females in the advertisements embraced and rejoiced in the natural beauty of the female form.” Non-gratuitous nudity was now socially acceptable, they insisted. Furthermore, breasts couldn’t be a rare or unnatural sight for children, they said, as the female form was seen on beach holidays or in art galleries.
The ASA noted that the complainants had found the image offensive, but considered that the image was neither likely to cause serious offence nor unsuitable for children to see, therefore the complaints were not upheld.
ASA: 020 7580 5555