A TV ad for a bookmaker Paddy Power showed a game of football being played by two teams of blindfolded men, using a ball which had a bell inside it. The ad opened with a shot of a kitbag marked Blind Wanderers FC, then showed the players mid-game. One player kicked the ball off the pitch and a cat, wearing a bell on its collar, ran on to the pitch and ran across it, with its bell ringing. The referee was about to blow his whistle, but one of the men was shown taking a kick and a thud and loud meow were then heard, although no contact between the player and the cat was shown on screen. The referee dropped his whistle in shock and the players stood around. A man in a suit appeared on the pitch, patted the shoulder of the player who had taken the kick and said Paddy Power can't get Tiddles back, there's nothing we can do about that, but we can get you your money back with our money-back specials and handed the player some bank notes. The man looked upwards with a quizzical expression and there was a shot of the cat walking along the branch of a tree, meowing. The final voice-over said Check 'em out before you bet at Paddy Power … and the player taking the kick was shown again, in slow motion, and a faint meow was again heard in the background.

Issue

1089 viewers objected to the ad.

1. 220 viewers objected that the ad was offensive to blind people.
2. 1070 viewers objected that the ad was offensive and harmful, because it might encourage or condone cruelty to animals.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that it was not offensive or disrespectful in itself to create an ad referring to or involving people with a disability. We noted that the ad featured, and was supported by members of the England Blind Football Team, and showed blind people enjoying a game of football. We considered that the action in the ad would be interpreted by most viewers as a humorous depiction of a fictional situation, with the humour derived from the surreal and improbable circumstances, when an unforeseeable and accidental action occurred. We considered it was unlikely to be seen by most viewers as malicious or to imply that blind people were likely to cause harm to animals whilst playing football. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to be seen as humiliating, stigmatising or undermining to blind people and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

2. Not upheld

We noted the ad was not aimed at children and was not shown in and around children's programmes. We considered the situation in the ad was surreal and improbable. We noted that the action did not directly show any footballers making contact with the cat and furthermore it pointedly ensured that the cat was shown ultimately unharmed, walking on the branch of a tree. We acknowledged that some viewers had not found the ad to be in good taste, but because it was surreal, farcical and light-hearted in tone, we considered it was unlikely to be seen by most viewers as a gratuitous or realistic portrayal of cruel treatment of an animal, or that it would encourage or condone cruelty to animals. We therefore concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

A TV and Video on Demand (VOD) ad for Pepsi Max.

The ad showed a woman and a man sitting near each other at a bar. The man leant towards the woman and said Hey, if you need another? to which she replied I'm fine. A breaking news story then played on the bar's TV and a reporter said I can now officially confirm that a huge asteroid is on a collision course with Earth and will destroy all life. The barman began to panic and scrambled along the bar shouting We're gonna die, we're all gonna die!. The customers then fled leaving only the man and woman at the bar. The reporter then said Reach out to someone, anyone who's near, show them you love them. Don't be alone. The woman and the man then looked at each other for a moment before she ran towards him and they kissed as they fell to the floor. The ad then cut to the bar's kitchen where the barman and the reporter from the TV were shown in a fake news studio. They were revealed to be friends of the man from the bar as he walked in. The reporter asked him And?, the man replied Thank you guys, I love you. Music played and all three men were then shown dancing and drinking the product. On-screen text stated MAX IT! above a product shot.

Issues

1. 36 viewers challenged whether the ad was harmful, because they believed the ad condoned deception as a means of obtaining sex, condoned rape or sexual assault and promoted casual sex.

2. 38 viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive, because they believed the ad was sexist, demeaned women, portrayed men as sexual predators and portrayed women as sex objects.

3. 8 viewers challenged whether The ad was suitable to be broadcast at times when children might be watching.

ASA Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the men used an elaborate ruse, including the staging of a fake news broadcast about the imminent destruction of the world, to entice the woman to kiss one of them. We considered this scenario was obviously fantastical and could clearly not be imitated by viewers. We also noted that the men did not use physical coercion and that the woman did not flee the bar with the other customers, but instead chose to stay behind before running towards the man, jumping on him and initiating the kiss. We therefore considered that she was shown to take the initiative in the encounter, rather than being depicted as being intimidated or acting against her will.

We noted that, although the two were seen kissing and falling to the floor, this was clearly a consensual act between two adults and that there was no nudity or an explicit sex scene. Nor did we consider that the ad suggested that such an encounter would be acceptable in more normal circumstances or that casual sex was acceptable. We therefore concluded the ad was not harmful in the manner suggested by the complainants.

2. Not upheld

We understood that the mans ability to elicit the kiss from the woman was a result solely of the elaborate ruse which he had concocted with his friends and that serious coercion or violence were not used, threatened or implied. We therefore considered that the men were depicted as comedic rather than predatory.

We also noted that all the customers in the bar were seen to fall for the hoax and react by panicking and fleeing. However, the woman was shown to remain calm before taking the initiative to kiss the man. We therefore did not consider that she was depicted as any more suggestible or less intelligent than the other patrons and we did not consider that the ad was sexist towards either her or women in general.

While we considered that some viewers would find the ad distasteful, we concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

3. Not upheld

We noted that the ad had been given an ex-kids timing restriction, which meant that it should not be broadcast in or around programmes targeted at young children.

We noted that the ad did not contain any nudity or sex scenes and considered that the ad was unlikely to be harmful to older children who would understand the faking of a news broadcast, and the ruse in general, to be fantastical.

However, we noted that the ad featured a passionate kiss and dealt with vaguely adult themes such as deception and seduction, albeit in a light-hearted, fantastical situation. We also considered that, while there was no explicit content, the men's back-slapping and dancing at the end of the ad could be seen as suggestive that something more than a kiss had occurred. We therefore agreed that a restriction to keep the ad away from times when younger children would be watching TV alone was appropriate. We did not consider a later restriction was necessary.

A digital escalator panel poster for the Bloody Mary: Killer Queen attraction at the London Dungeon, which appeared at London Underground stations, showed a portrait of Queen Mary sitting still and passively. Suddenly and quickly she turned to face the viewer and opened her mouth wide in a threatening manner, as if she was screaming. At the same time, her face morphed into that of a zombie-like character, with bloody gashes, white flesh, rotting teeth and red eyes. She then resumed her original passive position and her face returned to normal. On-screen text stated New for 2010 Bloody Mary: Killer Queen At the London Dungeon .... Issue

Four complainants objected that the ad was likely to frighten and distress children, and was therefore inappropriate for display in an untargeted medium. One of the complainants said his eight-year-old child had been frightened by the ad. Another of the complainants said he had seen the ad many times on London Underground escalators and it had visibly shocked and upset several children.

ASA Assessment: Upheld

The ASA noted the ad was untargeted and could therefore be seen by anyone. We considered that the London Underground attracted families and the ad was likely to be seen by young children.

We considered that the morphing image, and the juxtaposition of a calm face with a very scary one, were likely to startle and frighten young children. We noted the switch between the passive and frightening face occurred suddenly and unexpectedly, which could increase the shock value. We also considered that when the face morphed into the scary character, the bloody gashes, white flesh, rotting teeth, red eyes and the threatening expression meant it was not suitable for young children to see.

We were of the view that the ad seemed to be setting out to scare and had overstepped the limit of acceptability in doing so because, although not frightening for adults, the image was likely to be shocking to young children and to cause them fear or distress without good reason. We concluded that the ad was inappropriate for display in an untargeted medium.

The ad breached CAP Code clause 9.1 (Fear and distress). The ad must not appear again in its current form.

A vegetarian advert featuring Pamela Anderson in a bikini has been banned in Canada for being sexist.

Anderson features in a poster for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) covered in butcher's labels such as rump, ribs and breast.

The creators of the advert, which includes the slogan All Animals Have The Same Parts, had been seeking approval for it to be displayed in Montreal.

But Canadian officials rejected the banner, telling the animal rights group in an email it went against the battle of equality between men and women.

Anderson, who is a vegetarian and long-time Peta activist, hit out at the puritanical decision. She was due to unveil the poster at Montreal's Place Jaques-Cartier, but will now introduce it at a comedy festival media conference.

She said: In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest over the suffering of cows and chickens.

In some parts of the world, women are forced to cover their whole bodies with burkas - is that next? I didn't think that Canada would be so puritanical.

A new ad by a Russian airline featuring bikini-clad flight attendants washing planes has taken raunchiness to another level.

The saucy clip promoting Moscow-based start-up airline Avianova shows women stripping out of their stewardess uniforms and washing the company's planes.

It is the latest airline to use sex as a selling point. Last week another new airline, Spirit Airlines, came under fire for its raunchy ad. The commercial, featuring scantily clad women with the slogan Check Out The Oil On Our Beaches, was slammed for poking fun at the BP oil disaster. The airline has since pulled the ad following widespread condemnation.

Based on article from jaunted.com

The Australian Flight Attendants Association is petitioning the International Transport Federation to put a stop to Avianova-style travel advertising, which they consider to be over-the-top demeaning to women.

The basic claim isn't so much an abstract argument about sexism in advertising, although that's definitely included. The real issue is one of potential sexual harassment. If male passengers are told and shown that female flight attendants are sex objects, as the reasoning goes they're more liable to treat female flight attendants as sex objects. The result is that you have more drunks grabbing the thighs of more stewardesses in the middle of more flights.

Two posters, a Dazed and Confused magazine ad and a Grazia magazine ad for the Diesel clothing company:

a. One poster featured an image of a woman standing outdoors in a bikini. The woman was shown holding open her bikini bottoms with one hand and taking a photograph of her genitals with the other. A lion was shown prowling behind her and text stated SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS. BE STUPID. DIESEL.

b. Another poster featured an image of a woman on a stepladder who was lifting her top and exposing her breasts to a security camera. Text stated SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS. BE STUPID. DIESEL.

c. A Dazed and Confused magazine ad featured an image of a woman on a stepladder who was lifting her top and exposing her breasts to a security camera. Text stated SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS. BE STUPID. DIESEL.

d. An ad in Grazia magazine featured an image of a giant inflatable shape with a smiley face on it. Two denim clad bottoms were shown poking through holes in the face as if to form its eyes. Text stated ONLY THE STUPID CAN BE TRULY BRILLIANT. BE STUPID. DIESEL.

33 complainants objected that the ads:

1. were unsuitable to be seen by children;
2. were offensive; and
3. condoned or encouraged behaviour that was anti-social.

ASA Assessment: Complaints 1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that none of the ads showed full frontal nudity but considered that posters (a) and (b) contained sexual undertones. We noted ads (a) and (b) were posters and therefore appeared in an untargeted medium that were difficult to avoid and were likely to be seen by children. We considered the image of the woman in poster (a) was likely to cause serious offence to many adults because it was clear that she was taking a photograph of her genitalia and that the image of the woman exposing herself on the ladder in poster ad (b) was likely to cause serious or widespread offence because, although her breasts were only partially visible, the image showed her exposing herself to a surveillance camera. We were further concerned that the images of young women photographing their genitalia and exposing their breasts to a camera in a public place were unsuitable to be displayed on posters, an untargeted medium that was likely to be seen by children, because of the overt sexualisation involved in the depicted acts.

We concluded that the content of the posters was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to adults in an untargeted medium and was unsuitable to be seen by children.

We noted magazine ads (c) and (d) were unlikely to be seen by children because the publications were aimed specifically at adults. We also noted the editorial content of those magazines included material that covered sexual themes and considered that, in the context of the rest of the magazines contents, the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to readers of Dazed and Confused and Grazia.

Posters (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency).

ASA Assessment: Complaint 3. Upheld

We noted the image of the woman alone in a field with the lion in poster ad (a) was surreal and stylized and considered that, because of the surreal setting, the image was unlikely to be seen to condone or encourage people to expose themselves in public. We therefore considered that the ad was unlikely to encourage or condone anti-social behaviour.

However, we noted the image in poster ad (b) appeared realistic and considered that the image portrayed socially challenging actions that might be attractive to younger consumers who would be interested in the youthful and edgy fashion range and might encourage behaviour that was anti-social or irresponsible. Although magazine ad (c) portrayed the same image as poster ad (b), we considered that readers of Dazed and Confused magazine would interpret the ad within the context of the whole magazine and would see it as a tongue-in-cheek comment on society rather than an encouragement of anti-social behaviour.

Although we understood some readers might have found the image in magazine ad (d) distasteful, we considered that most readers of Grazia magazine would see the action as playful and, even if emulated, would be unlikely to view it as anti-social. We concluded that magazine ad (d) did not condone or encourage anti-social behaviour

Poster ad (b) breached CAP Code clause 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour).

The makers of Georgi Vodka have staged a demonstration complete with bikinis, booze, and a lawyer crying constitutional foul. They paid a handful of scantily clad babes to rally outside a bus depot on Manhattan's West Side.

The purpose of the protest, says the vodka company, was to shame the Manhattan Transport Authority (MTA) into reversing it's policy of accommodation when religious groups request racy ads be removed from buses in Hasidic Jewish neighborhoods.

At issue in this case are 2 ads featuring vodka bottles nestled next to buxom butts covered by white bikini bottoms. Georgi Vodka distillers say the ad is tasteful and the MTA ban is censorship and an infringement their First Amendment rights.

The bikini ad ban applies to buses at three depots in Brooklyn which have been accommodating the borough's Hasidic leaders for a decade now.

Currently adverts for porn products are banned from TV, including cable and satellite.

From 1st September 2010, the rules will loosen up a bit.

On radio, softcore products may be advertised between 10pm and 5:30am but the adverts have to be centrally cleared

On TV, adverts for softcore/hardcore products are allowed only on encrypted adult channels. The adverts themselves must never feature hardcore but may be softcore between 10pm and 5:30am.

The published CAP rules seem to be a bit mis-numbered and mangled though:

Rules

30.1 Radio Central Copy Clearance – Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography may be broadcast only if they are centrally cleared.

30.2 Radio advertisements for R18-rated material are not permitted.

30.3 Television only – Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only.

30.3.1 Television only – Advertisements must not feature R18-rated material or its equivalent. That does not preclude advertisements for R18-rated material or its equivalent behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels.

30.3.2 Television only – Advertisements permitted under rules 30.2 and 30.2.1 must not feature material that comes within the recognised character of pornography before 10.00pm or after 5.30am.

30.3.3 Radio advertisements for R18-rated material are not permitted.