Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2013 | Page 39

Product relevance

Broadcasting restrictions

Each year the Board consistently receives
complaints regarding the use of sex, sexuality
and nudity in the promotion of lingerie. The
Board continues to note that it is reasonable for
an advertiser to depict its products, particularly
lingerie, being modelled in its advertising.

When considering advertisements which
appear on television, the Board considers
the classification they are given and the time
restrictions which apply to its broadcasting.
Advertisements deemed suitable for a PG
audience include BSQ Productions (0224/13) and
Coca-Cola (0120/13). In both cases, while some
of the scenes were sexualised the Board noted they
were very brief and overall the advertisements
were relatively mild and did treat sex, sexuality
and nudity with sensitivity to a PG audience.
Close-up images of people’s bottoms working
out in an exercise routine (Brand Developers –
0222/13) were cleared by the Board as the product
advertised and length of advertisement would not
appeal to children.

In 2013, the Board dismissed complaints
under Section 2.4 for models in lingerie
(Myer – 0072/13, Pacific Brands – 0022/13,
Target – 0266/13, Bras n things – 0020/13 &
Woolworths Supermarkets – 0267/13). In these
cases, the Board considered the imagery of models
in lingerie to be appropriate considering the
product sold, not overly sexualised and did not
use inappropriate nudity or exposure. Similarly,
the Board dismissed complaints for Cotton On
(0044/13 & 0045/13), Missguided (0225/13) and
Fusion Retail Brands (0122/13) for promoting
fashion in a manner which did not contravene
community standards of sex, sexuality and nudity.
Advertisements for sex products and services
generated community concern in 2013 under
Section 2.4. The Board continues to note that
advertisers are legally able to advertise their
product, so they must only consider the content of
the advertisement and not address concerns that
sex products and services should not be advertised
altogether. The Board has dismissed complaints
for sex product or service advertisements for
Adultshop.com (0344/13), Advanced Medical
Institute (0145/13, 0158/13 & 0192/13), Erotic
Nights (0384/13), Sexpo (0109/13, 0116/13,
0210/13 & 0275/13) and Sexyland (0083/13
& 0290/13). In these cases, the Board found
the level of sex, sexuality and nudity used to be
not inappropriate and directly relevant to the
product advertised.
Although relevant to the product or service being
advertised, advertisements can still cross the line
of acceptability if the use of sex, sexuality and
nudity is too explicit. A mail pamphlet for Sydney
Luxury Massage (0082/13) included an image of a
woman in lingerie on one side, and her mouth on
the other side with her finger against her lips. The
imagery on this pamphlet was considered to be
highly sexualised by the Board and inappropriate
for viewing by children who may be exposed to
this advertising.

Review of Operations 2013

A TV advertisement for Innerware Lingerie
(0347/13) given an M rating was found in
breach of the Code for displaying sexualisation
which was not sensitive to this classification. The
advertisement featured a woman walking in to a
tyre fitting workshop wearing lingerie and asking
the man behind the counter if he can fit her. The
Board’s view was that there was a strong focus on
her lingerie and body, and the images were too
sexually suggestive for the relevant audience.

Humour and sexual innuendo
Advertisers should take note that although their
intent is to portray humour in their advertisement,
sometimes this humour can be misunderstood.
In a case for Yum Restaurants (0199/13), the
depiction of women in bikinis was deemed
acceptable due to the light hearted and humorous
nature of the advertisement, and since the
women’s actions were not overly sexualised. In
contrast, a case for Chrysler Australia (0053/13)
was found in breach of Section 2.4 of the Code
for depicting an overly sexualised scene which was
not sensitive to the PG audience on TV. Although
the advertiser’s intent was to convey a humorous
and fantastical situation, the Board considered
the content was not appropriate for a broader
audience which may include children.
Sexual innuendo considered by the Board in
2013 generally raises questions of whether
children would understand the sexual message,

or whether it is subtle enough to be interpreted
only by an adult audience. Cases dismissed under
Section 2.4 for mild sexual innuendo include
the terminology shedding pussy (Global Shop
Direct – 0075/13), hump club (0040/13), hole in
one (Nando’s Australia – 0220/13), saggy ball sacks
(Sportsbet – 0001/13) and amazeballs (Retail
Food Group – 0234/13). The phrases you can’t get
it up referring to getting websites up the ranking
list on search engines (The SEO Company 0221/13) and the phrase something’s going down
on me referring to his tyre were in the Board’s
view mild sexual innuendo in the context of each
particular advertisement which was unlikely to be
understood by children.

Sexualisation of children
In 2013, research into community perceptions of
exploitative and degrading advert \