Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 | Page 43

Innuendo and sexual references
In 2014 the Board considered sexualised innuendo
and suggestive wording in advertisements with
terms such as assets, burgasm, shag and wet
dreams. The Board considers the audience who
may be exposed to the advertisement and is more
conservative with advertisements where children
may hear or view such language.
A lingerie campaign referring to women’s
breasts as assets (Target - 0108/14) was cleared
by the Board of inappropriate language claims.
The Board view was that the theme of the
advertisement was not of a sexual nature and
that the presentation and discussion about bras
was factual and helpful and that the word “assets”
in relation to a woman’s breasts was not, in this
context, language which most members of the
community would find to be strong, obscene
or inappropriate.
A poster advertisement that highlighting the
chance to win a trip to Dubai used the words
wet dreams (General Pants Group - 0390/14).
Although noting the sexual connotation of the
phrase the Board’s view was that the reference
was closely linked to the competition to win an
overseas trip and in the context of a promotion
it considered that the advertisement did not use
language that was strong or obscene.
The term burgasm (Yum Restaurants
International - 0351/14) used in reference to the
pleasure experienced by a person when eating
a burger was also viewed as appropriate in the
circumstances and not a term which would be
considered strong or obscene by most members
of the community. The Board acknowledged
that ‘orgasm’ has a sexual meaning but noted the
placement of the advertisement on the advertiser’s
Facebook page in determining it did not breach
Section 2.5.
A television advertisement p romoting a rug sale
(Rugs a Million – 0006/14) used a man dressed
as Austin Powers saying the phrase “I got a
shag.” Each time the phrase is used a shag rug
is featured. The Board view was that while the
advertisement is clearly using sexual innuendo to
promote the products on sale the innuendo was
relatively mild and it was clear that the actors

Review of Operations 2014

were talking about rugs and not a sexual act. The
Board was also of the view that young children
would be unlikely to understand the cultural
reference of Austin Powers or the alternative
meaning to the word and considered that the use
of the word in the context of a rug sale was not
sexualised or inappropriate.
The Board noted that a man’s comments at the
start of a radio advertisement describing waking
each morning with an ‘urge’ before explaining
he means for the baked goods were open to
interpretation and considered that some members
of the community would find his comments to be
of a sexual nature. The Board noted however that
the man quickly explains he is referring to the
food and considered that the level of innuendo
was mild and would be unlikely to be understood
by children.
In the Board’s view there is a difference between
an advertisement using the word ‘sex’ to promote a
sexual performance enhancement product and an
advertisement promoting a movie with the word
‘sex’ in its title (Sony Pictures Releasing Pty Ltd
– 0313/14). In this case the advertised product is
a movie called ‘Sex Tape’. Although the size and
red colouring of the wording did make the words
more visible, in the Board’s view the placement
of images of the two main actors in front of the
wording lessened the impact of the words and as
such they were not inappropriate for use on an
advertisement which can be seen by children.

Acceptable terms
A variety of terms raised concerns during 2014.
The terms are often those used in the Australian
vernacular and most often are viewed by the
Board as acceptable.
A lingerie campaign attracted several complaints
for using the word “boobs” in transport (Pacific
Brands Holdings Pty Ltd – 0385/14). Concerns
surrounded the use of the word “boobs” in public
areas where children may be exposed to the

language. As with advertisements used previously
in this campaign the Board determined that
the word “boobs” was not strong, obscene or
inappropriate and that the term is common slang,
used in a manner that is consistent with modern
Australian vernacular, and a word that many

women use in relation to their own breasts. The
addition of a descriptor and symbols within the
word itself did not alter the overall tone of the
word and in line with its decision in the previous
case (0368/13) the Board felt the advertisement
was not strongly sexualised and was likely to be
seen as being in the context of a brand which
sells bras.
One of the most complained about advertisements
in 2014 was for sanitary pads ( Johnson &
Johnson Pacific Pty Ltd – 0069/14). Concerns
about terms used such as “bled” and a scene with
a girl questioning putting a tampon “up there”
were viewed by the Board as correct in the context
of the advertised product. The Board noted that
some members of the community would prefer for
the whole subject to not be advertised but in its
view the language used was not inappropriate in
the circumstances and was not strong or obscene.
The terms “smoko” (Lion – 0252/14) and “bugger
off ” (eatnow.com.au – 0207/14) were seen as
being acceptable Australian vernacular. In the case
of the term “smoko” the Board took into account
the origins of the word “smoko” as being from a
period where the break time at work was used to
smoke a cigarette, that many trades people still
commonly use the term, but that today, while it is
used to indicate a break from work, it is no longer
only used to mean a designated time to have a
cigarette. The Board view was that most members
of the community would consider that the term
is acceptable.
The Board has consistently determined that use
of the term “bugger off ”, in a context that is
not aggressive, threatening or demeaning, is not
language that is strong or obscene. In the case of
the online food ordering service the Board view
was consistent with previous determinations in
that the term was used colloquially to relate to the
readers’ lack of interest in cooking and to show
that ordering takeaway was an easier option.

The word “tosser” featured in two advertisements
(Southern Waste – 0042/14 and Environment
Protection Agency – 0152/14) to describe people
littering. Some concerns were raised about other
possible definitions of the term, but the Board
considered in each of these cases the term was
used in the context of someone who has tossed

41