Advertising News

A TV ad for a mobile app, Nude Scanner 3D , shown during six episodes of Hollyoaks. The ad showed a clothed woman holding an umbrella. A hand appeared which held a mobile phone. The phone then scanned the woman which revealed her naked with her breasts and crotch blurred out. The naked image then rotated, showing the woman from the waist up. The voice-over stated, The 3D nude scanner is available for your mobile. Prank your friends to think you can see what any of them look like without clothes on. Just send scan to xx xxx to get the fun app now. Or also go to xxxxxxx.co.uk and join Jamster action for £4.50 per week. On-screen text stated For entertainment purposes only ... 16+, Bill payer's permission .

The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction.

Twenty-six viewers complained about the ad:

1. Twenty-one viewers challenged whether the ad was appropriately scheduled because it was shown at times when it could be seen by children, including young teenagers.
2. Seven viewers, some of whom stated that the ad was demeaning to women, challenged whether the ad would cause serious or widespread offence.
3. Seven viewers challenged whether the ad could encourage anti-social behaviour.

ASA Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA welcomed Jamster's assurance that the ad had been removed from broadcast. We noted the ad featured a naked woman, with her breasts and crotch pixilated, who rotated in order to show her front and back. We acknowledged that the models featured on the app would not be shown fully naked, that the voice-over contained one reference to pranking and that on-screen text stated for entertainment purposes only . However, we considered that viewers may have assumed that the image would be fully nude because the ad had not made that clear. We also noted the visual of the woman was held on-screen for the majority of the ad and that she appeared in a playful and provocative pose. Because the ad focused on the product's apparent ability to enable the user to view naked images of women using the camera on their phone, and had a prolonged focus on the female model, we considered it was unsuitable for a child audience and was likely to be viewed as demeaning to women and, therefore, offensive.

We acknowledged the ex-kids restriction that was applied to the ad which meant that it should not be shown during programmes that were likely to be of particular appeal to children. We obtained the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) figures and noted that the proportion of children who had watched Hollyoaks during the times when the ad was viewed by the complainants was, on two occasions, above the threshold at which a TV programme was said to have particular appeal to audiences who were under 16 years of age. Furthermore, on those broadcasts and on one other broadcast, the threshold of children between the ages of 10 and 15 who had viewed Hollyoaks was also above that threshold. We considered that whilst younger children may not understand the references to a nude scanner , that was unlikely to be the case for older children and we considered them to be the group most likely to have been interested in downloading the app.

Because the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, we concluded it should not have been broadcast at any time, including during programmes of particular appeal to children.

On these points, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and offence) 32.1 (Scheduling of television and radio advertisements) and 32.3 (Under-16s).

3. Not upheld

We noted the ad had not contained language or on-screen text that encouraged the app to be downloaded to make fun or humiliate others. Whilst we considered the ad to be demeaning to women and unsuitable for children, and acknowledged that some viewers might find the product distasteful, we concluded that the ad itself was unlikely to condone or encourage bullying or anti-social behaviour.

On this point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Responsible advertising) 4.9 (Harm and offence) and 5.4 (Children) but did not find it in breach. Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Jesta Digital GmbH to ensure their future advertising was not demeaning to women and contained nothing that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Two TV ads promoted Baileys and featured an arrangement of the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy from the Nutcracker ballet throughout:

a. The ad opened with three women arriving at a party and each receiving a glass of Baileys. One of the women made eye contact with a man across the room who then approached and commenced dancing with her in a ballet style. Another male character, who had watched the couple from a balcony, jumped down to the floor and, flanked by his friends, joined the dance. At that point, the music increased in pace and the dance became more confrontational in style as the group of men tried to separate the couple and grab the female lead away. The male leads were shown dancing together, spinning and kicking as they leapt towards and away from one another. At one point the female character stepped between the men before being grabbed by one of the group of men and later struggling free. The dance ended as the woman performed a pirouette with her leg extended, which appeared to strike the second man across the face. She then rejoined her friends, at which point text stating Spend time with the girls this Christmas appeared.

b. The ad was a shortened version of ad (a) and showed the same key scenes, including the confrontation between the male characters and the shot of the woman appearing to kick one of the men across the face. The ad also ended with the female lead rejoining her friends and the text Spend time with the girls this Christmas . Issue

The ASA received nine complaints.

1. One complainant challenged whether ad (a) was in breach of the Code, because it featured violent and aggressive behaviour in the context of an ad promoting alcohol.

2. Eight complainants challenged whether ad (b) was in breach of the Code for the same reason.

Diageo Great Britain Ltd explained that the idea behind the ads was to show the ultimate girls' night out in a modern, fantastical way and they had chosen to do so through a retelling of the classic story, and Christmas ballet, the Nutcracker.

Diageo did not believe that the ads linked alcohol with violent or aggressive behaviour in any way. They highlighted that the ads were set in a fairy-tale land and showed an interpretation of an instantly recognisable famous scene from the Nutcracker ballet (the dance of the Mouse King) and as such were deliberately and obviously fictional. They said every creative aspect of the ads, from the costumes, set design, music and choice of ballet as a dance medium, were designed to be fantastical and far removed from real life.

ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld

The ASA understood that the ads were intended as a retelling of a scene from the famous Christmas ballet, the Nutcracker, in which Clara saved the Nutcracker from the Mouse King and his army of toy soldiers. We noted that throughout both ads a rendition of the score from the ballet was played and included music from the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy. We considered that most consumers would be familiar with the basic story of the ballet and therefore understand that the ads reflected that story.

We understood that the complainants objected to the fact that the ads linked alcohol and what they believed to be aggressive and anti-social behaviour. We noted that when the male character jumped down from the balcony and tried to separate the dancing couple, the music increased in pace and featured more staccato notes, and the characters' interactions and movements became more accented as they moved spinning, leaping and kicking towards and away from one another. We also noted the grabbing gestures, the fact the female lead was shown struggling and trying to escape from the Mouse King's friends, and the end of the scene when her extended leg appeared to strike the man across the face.

We considered, however, that from the outset the ads were clearly fantastical and highly stylised. We noted the costumes, the opulent setting and the fact the narrative was communicated almost entirely through the medium of dance. We also considered that whilst the characters' movements changed, becoming less fluid and more dramatic as the music sped up and the second male character entered the dance floor, the movement was still obviously identifiable as choreographed dance. Similarly, we considered that the reaction of the other guests around the dance floor when the female lead appeared to strike the male, and the manner in which she returned to her friends, suggested that the male character had not been injured, and emphasised the stylised and light-hearted nature of the ads.

We considered that viewers would understand that the ads were a fictional and stylised retelling of a popular Christmas ballet, and would understand the dancing featured, including the choreographed confrontational movements between the main characters and the final pirouette, to be a visual expression of the story, as opposed to a realistic depiction of violent or aggressive behaviour. We therefore concluded that the ads were not in breach of the Code.

We investigated the ads under BCAP Code rule 19.5 (Alcohol), but did not find them in breach.

A complaint about a fashion advert featuring guns and knives has been lodged by a moralist campaign group.

Fashion company Dolce & Gabbana created an advert for their winter campaign. It depicts a man with a flintlock pistol grasping a naked woman as they stand over a dead body with a bullet hole in its forehead, while two other men stand poised with daggers.

Dee Warner, of campaign group Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, said:

The poster has nothing whatsoever to do with fashion and everything to do with the glorification of guns and knives.

Dolce & Gabbana should take responsibility for the part they play in the damage caused by these insensitive and irresponsible advertising campaigns.

The fashion industry is looked up to by our young people, those that aspire to wear the clothing that their celebrity idols wear.

The industry is filled with irresponsible adverts that send out messages to these young people that guns and knives are cool and so are drugs.

Warner said she was submitting a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Moralist campaigners One Million Mums are trying to get the US office supplies chain, Staples, to withdraw its 'What the L' adverts. The group writes:

The new Staples ad campaign uses the tagline What the L! We all know children repeat what they hear. Everyone knows exactly what the company is implying with the mock swearing, but their commercials make sure there is no doubt of their intentions to push the advertising envelope. Staples printed ad spells out STAP ES (minus the L), - leading to the question, What the L is going on?

Staples commercials use these slogans: There will be L to pay; L if I know; Get the L out of here; All L has broken loose and What the L is going on.

Staples' ads (airing on broadcast airwaves and in print) are irresponsible and offensive. They are extremely destructive and damaging to impressionable children who will be exposed to this suggested profanity.

TAKE ACTION

Send Staples an email letter and urge them to no longer produce marketing campaigns that cross the line, to pull the newest What the L commercials off the air and stop circulation of the printed ad immediately.

A Bondi burger restaurant's advertisement depicting a woman's bottom as a hamburger has been banned by the Australian advert censor.

GoodTime Burgers, which opened at the Eastern Hotel in Bondi Junction last month, had published the ad in the December issue of eastern suburbs community magazine The Beast before its launch.

The ad showed a woman lying on a beach in a bikini with her bottom forming the buns of a hamburger, under the tagline the freshest fun between the buns .

One of the complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau was that the woman's body and private parts are objectified as something for people (probably men) to consume .

The advert censor claimed that the ad breached Section 2.2 of the Australian Association of National Advertisers code in that it was exploitive and degrading to women.

It also determined that the fun between the buns tagline was sexually related innuendo and, while the magazine was not targeted directly at children, it was easily accessible to a broad audience and therefore did not treat issues of sex and nudity with sensitivity to its audience.