Ad watchdog rules: Objectification of women is okay, but not the lack of a seatbelt
A Brut ad which has been accused of sexism has been banned by the Advertising Standards Board – because one of the men isn’t wearing a seatbelt.
The Brut ad features three men ogling a woman in a bikini before concluding with the message: “Brut Code #85 Spot & share”.
ha. as if the first complaint actually came from a man.
feminism vs. feminism, round 123, DING!
“She is aware of her physical attributes and wears clothing and acts accordingly.” = she’s asking for it
Worth CG’ing a seatbelt in to it, surely?
Of course she might be a very empowered and confident blonde in a bikini, and when she is not being oggled by educationally sub-normal teenagers she could be running a multi-national organisation
Just watched it again to make sure I really understood just how objectified she is in this commercial….I presume the board would have watched it many times?
Being a 25 year old woman, I am appalled that I don’t have the same figure as lthe girl in the commercial, and disgusted that boys have never sat on a car to sing a song about ME.
It should have been banned anyway for having such a shockingly bad jingle.
Old Spice it ain’t
much prefer the lynx commercials
Yeah, but she’s so HOT!
wow that must of taken a lot of intellegence to come up with this ad – did they design in a boys school?
@HG Why wouldn’t it come from a man?
Hasn’t she got a great rack!!
The jingle should have been played by Spinal Tap. Maybe one of the songs from Smell The Glove?
@Kristian okay, it might have.
in which case i’d be shocked and impressed. but not eat my words.
because defence for women (of this nature) rarely comes from men…
Should be banned for the jingle alone.
Sorry, gotta make a technical comment. Car nut, you know….
The car’s a left hook 65-odd Mustang. Probably has a reclining lap belt. Entirely OK in Aus, under certain rules, for this kind of car.
ASB got this one right. Admiration and objectification are entirely different things. This kind of thing happens on a thousand beaches a thousand times every day. The tone is fun. The underlying attitude isn’t malicious. It’s not a good ad but objectifying? Not at all.
People who complain against this sort of thing need to get their heads out of their bums and realise how ridiculous they are.
This whole “girl’s looked at by guys in an ad is always objectification (even that’s a new word, isn’t it?)” thing is getting way out of hand.
Who’s the model, she is one fine example of female perfection IMHO.
I am so sick of hearing about this constant PC crap.
Isn’t it time we all went back to basics and concentrated on making great ads that sell products!?!?!
Seriously, who cares if someone gets upset with an ad or two on air. Besides, I don’t think Brut are wanting women to but their product…
I didn’t notice the lack of seatbelt, and I barely noticed the objectification of women….but I’m pleased the ad has been banned because that stupid song sung by that idiot in the advert was EXCRUCIATING!!
t’is not objectification to admire the glory and beauty of the female form.
Surely, if you believe in a divine omnipresent being or power, that has shaped and sculpted all the world, including the girl featured in this ad then you should be embracing the appreciation of such beauty and indeed encouraging the spreading of this joy and appreciation.
If you, like me, do not have such faith then you should simply allow yourself to appreciate the beauty of all life – including this dear femme.
@David
As you will no doubt agree, there are many things which happen all the time which are not okay. Thus, whether or not something happens all the time is not a means by which we can judge whether something is, or ought to be, morally/socially permissible.
You say the tone is fun. Indeed it may be, but fun for who? Fun for groups of men to stare at women in public places? or fun for individual women who get stared at by groups of men? I would suggest it is the former, rather than the latter, that it is fun for.
The ASB claims the ad is objectifying. So, when you say they “got this one right” and “It’s not a good ad but objectifying? Not at all.” you seem to contradict yourself.
You also say:
“This whole “girl’s looked at by guys in an ad is always objectification (even that’s a new word, isn’t it?)” thing is getting way out of hand.”
Objectification isn’t a new word, though even if it was I’m not sure being a new word is a grounds for dismissing it. What other ideas would you dismiss because they involve words which are new to you?
When you suggest it is getting out of hand, perhaps what is getting out of hand is the ongoing use of sexual objectification of women as a means for men to make money for themselves. Perhaps the complaints are only representative of the problem of a production culture knee deep in misogyny.
Your claim of things “getting out of hand” is especially interesting in relation to a ASB decision which in fact does not uphold the complaints! I’m not entirely sure what it is that’s out of hand about people complaining about an advertisement that clearly represents a situation that most people would find uncomfortable (being starred at by a group of strangers) as being a friendly, healthy and normal thing to do PARTICULARLY given that we live in a society where sexual harrassment, sexual assault is not uncommon and PARTICULARLY in light of the still unfolding history of group violence (sexual and otherwise) by men against women.
@Nash does suck though, getting banned for something that evidently wasn’t even on the complaint. In dismissing the complaint they’ve really not gained anything by banning the ad because of something else minor and ridiculous. Just stupid really (like the jingle).
Onya David@luvyawork.
I’m not an expert on the road rules as they apply to classic cars, but I think that cars that fit into this category are exempt from having seatbelts installed at all, which makes the decision groundless.
joel, you crack me up.
Anything potentially negative in this ad pales in comparison to that amazingly shit song.
Let’s face it, it’s just a sh*t ad. Too bad the guys aren’t hot too!
Why does the black guy have to ride in the boot of the car?
And btw I don’t see how this ad is good for Brut given the girl doesn’t seem to be too impressed with the boys…
It’s just an awful ad. Full stop.
No matter how sexy the woman is or who’s not wearing a seatbelt, it’s a crap ad.
It’s pretty demeaning of men too. I mean, are we supposed to believe all men are like that portrayal? How stereotypical and offensive. Frankly I’m offended at the suggestion that I cannot look a woman in the eye, because I can. I judge books by more than their covers, as I do women. Let’s come down to earth and realise that some people are attractive – and by definition that means they attract attention. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there are less revealing clothing options available for women should they choose. There are bigger issues than a hot woman being used in an ad to sell something (not that that’s ever happened before).
But please, don’t mistake this as a defence of the commercial. It sucks.
@Kristian nope, didn’t contradict myself when I said the ASB got it right. I was talking about the reason for the complaint, not the fact they upheld it because of something else.
I don’t dismiss any ideas because of words I don’t know (and I do know lots though I was being tongue in cheek there, thanks for noticing). I do dismiss ideas when they’re based on notions that somehow every time a woman appears in an ad being admired by men then it’s accused of being proposing gang rape, sexual violence, anti-social behaviour or objectification.
In my opinion advertising reflects and is a reflection of society and how people go about their lives. It rolls with and impacts society. What happened in this ad actually does happen, innocently, playfully and friendlyly (there, I made up my own new word). It also happens maliciously but is that any reason to cut everything out? No.
I personally don’t like this ad but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the context in which it’s set out, though there are plenty of others (even from competitor brands) that I don’t think are OK. Also, just because they might happen, it doesn’t mean it’s OK to glorify it (which I hope you’re not suggesting I was saying, otherwise I would’ve just told you to get stuffed instead of continuing the debate).
Anyway, the complaint was upheld because of a seat belt that probably wasn’t there in the first place, a bloke strumming a tune on the parcel shelf while the car pulled up and another dude appearing from the trunk (it’s an American car, so it’s a trunk) after it parked. This is stupid on another level, bikini girls or not.
where’s the horse?
Brut, Lynx and the like – you should all be ashamed of yourselves. You’re a bunch of hollow heads !
I thought much of this product category was purchased BY women FOR men? If so, does the client have rocks in their heads for going with this ad, that tries so hard to be a ‘lads ad’ but gets the balance so wrong?
There may be some women who don’t find this offensive (and vocalise it), but most would feel at best uncomfortable with it, through to outright offense. Where brand metrics and sales should determine ad effectiveness, why pick a fight with your secondary target audience and make them feel cheap?
Why would you want to develop an ad that borderlines on suggesting gang rape, even if you can get away with it through the ASB? Says a lot about Pharmacare.
Lulu, are you implying that women do the shopping in the supermarket for men?
Seriously, this is just embarrassing. Regardless of the sexism, it’s just a crap idea. You’ve got to spot and share? Huh? And what’s up with that guy in the boot?
Get over it! I’m a 26 year old female and I work very hard to keep my body in good shape, so I don’t mind being “oogled” by guys. I myself “oogle” at guys with a hot body. Big deal. Look at Sex and The City. The entire series and the film objectifies males.
The car is only moving for literally 1 second of the advertisement. surely they could just cut this out?
Suprising they noticed the lack of of a seat belt given the smokin’ hottie in the add 😛
Okay … Seriously bad jingle, no real structure to the ad itself & if it didn’t have the brutcode line in the ad you may be forgiven for thinking that they are trying to sell a spray-on tan in a can.
To say that this ad is sexist is a bit narrow-minded. The boardies over budgies shows that women only care about how mens packages look? I don’t think so, these ads are not to be taken seriously. The Philly cheese ad is a more sexist. Slapping a scantily clad male servant!!! Terrible…. That ad is promoting violent group sex!
Give me a break both ads are bad but they’re both harmless.