Advertising News

The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) is the trade association for betting and gaming, representing betting shops, online gaming businesses and casinos. The association has announced that it will be restricting internet advertising to websites that can prove that they are targeting over 18s or else are targeting over 25s (without so much proof required). The association announced:

Tough new measures aimed at further preventing under-18s from seeing gambling adverts online have been unveiled by the Betting and Gaming Council.

The standards body, which represents the regulated betting industry excluding the National Lottery, unveiled the crackdown as it published the Sixth Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising.

In future, BGC members must ensure that all sponsored or paid for social media adverts must be targeted at consumers aged 25 and over unless the website can prove its adverts can be precisely targeted at over 18s.

The new code also includes a requirement that gambling ads appearing on search engines must make clear that they are for those aged 18 and over. In addition, the adverts themselves must also include safer gambling messages.

YouTube users will also have to use age-verified accounts before they can view gambling ads, guaranteeing that they cannot be seen by under-18s. And BGC members will have to post frequent responsible gambling messages on their Twitter accounts.

The new code, which will come into force on 1 October, is the latest example of the BGC's determination to drive up standards within the betting and gaming industry.

Other measures include the whistle to whistle ban on TV gambling adverts, a requirement for 20% of all TV and radio ads to be safer gambling messaging, cooling off periods on gaming machines, encouraging deposit limits, new ID and age verification checks and massively increasing funding for research, education and treatment.

This Instagram advertisement features a black and white image of a woman from behind. She is standing with her hands on her hips and is wearing a garter belt. Her buttocks are exposed. The caption with the image states, The ultimate bondage babe, KUKURO, selling fast online

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:

This is a sexualised, sexually objectifying image of a woman to sell a product. The woman's face is not shown, just a sexualised representation of her body. Her body and sexual appeal are therefore treated as representing her whole self and defining her worth. I object to this image because images that sexualise and objectify women, and determine a woman's value based on her sexual appeal and physical attractiveness.

The Panel noted the complainant's concern that the advertisement sexualises and objectifies the woman pictured. The Panel viewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser did not respond.

The Panel considered whether the advertisement was in breach of Section 2.2 of the Code. Section 2.2 of the Code states:

Advertising or marketing communications should not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative or degrading of any individual or group of people.

The Panel noted the complainant's concern that the advertisement sexually objectifies women by depicting a woman without showing her face, and that therefore her body and sexual appeal are treated as defining her worth.

The Panel first considered whether the advertisement used sexual appeal. The Panel considered the woman is depicted from behind wearing only a g-string and suspenders. The Panel considered that the advertisement did depict sexual appeal.

The Panel then considered whether the advertisement used sexual appeal in a manner that was exploitative of an individual or group of people. The Panel considered that it was clear from the advertisement that the product for sale was the lingerie, not the woman, and that the woman was not depicted as an object or commodity. The Panel noted that the woman's entire body is depicted and that the Wonder Woman pose is a position of power. The Panel considered that the advertisement is promoting the brand Honey Birdette as well as the lingerie, and that the depiction of the woman and the focus on her body is relevant to a brand which makes products for the female body and promotes the empowerment of women.

The Panel considered that the depiction of the woman without her face shown was not an attempt to suggest that she is an object or available for purchase, but rather was a creative choice relating to the theme and style of the photograph. The Panel considered that some members of the community may consider the depiction of a woman without her face shown, focusing instead on the lingerie being promoted, to be suggesting her worth is related to her body only. However the Panel considered that most members of the community would not have this interpretation of the advertisement, rather that is is portraying a lingerie product in a sexualised manner. Overall the Panel considered that the advertisement did not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative of the woman.

The Panel then considered whether the advertisement used sexual appeal in a manner that was degrading of an individual or group of people. The Panel considered that the woman is depicted in a powerful pose, and is standing with her shoulders back and head held high. The Panel noted that the image was sexualised with the depiction of the woman also showing her buttocks and between her legs from behind. However the Panel considered that the depiction of a woman wearing sexualised lingerie in this promotion for that style of lingerie was not a depiction which lowered the woman in character or quality. Overall the Panel considered that the advertisement did not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is degrading of the woman.

The Panel determined that the advertisement did not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is

Lingerie retailer Honey Birdette says it was forced to censor an advert in Australia that would get the green light to be shown in the United States and Britain.

Eloise Monaghan, the founder of the company which started in Brisbane, stripped off for the photoshoot herself along with her wife Natalie. The two women and a number of other male and female models feature with their chests bared in the photoshoot campaign dubbed fluid.

The models are body-painted in rainbow colours in a nod to the famous Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras which is being held on February 29.

Monaghan said she could show the ad in her New York and London stores but constant complaints to the advertising watchdog in Australia forced her to censor the poster in her own country. Monaghan said Australia used to be free-thinking but has recently become stricter which she says is frightening.

The Australian moralist group Collective Shout whinged:

Collective Shout has campaigned against Honey Birdette's pornified representations of women for close to a decade. Honey Birdette has been found in breach of Ad Standards rulings 31 times since January 2018. Caitlin Roper of Collective Shout said:

Far from promoting equality, this is an act of rainbow washing for profit. The company claims diversity while featuring flawless bodies and large-breasted women.

The ad has received an outpouring of criticism on Honey Birdette's Instagram and Facebook page, including for profiting off of Pride and as a blatant attempt to cover up an orgy with a rainbow filter.

Collective Shout has supported a petition launched by Melbourne father of three Kenneth Thor directed at CEOs of shopping centres which host Honey Birdette's porn-inspired portrayals which has attracted almost 77,000 signatures. Honey Birdette has a counter petition which we have been told by a source close to the company comprises a large percentage of fake names added by staff.

An Australian feminist campaign group, Collective Shout , have whinged about a KFC ZInger advert featuring young lads being transfixed by the cleavage of young woman checking her cheerleader like attire in the reflection of a car window.

The campaigners claimed the the ad to be:

a regression to tired and archaic stereotypes where young women were sexually objectified for male pleasure; and males were helplessly transfixed when confronted with the opportunity to ogle a woman's body.

The ad has been running on television and has also been shared on the fast food chain's YouTube channel.

KFC apologised saying:

We apologise if anyone was offended by our latest commercial. Our intention was not to stereotype women and young boys in a negative light.

KFC has not confirmed if it will stop using the ad.