Comments on: Ad watchdog rules: Objectification of women is okay, but not the lack of a seatbelt

By: Stan

Stan — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:25:15 +0000

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.

By: Hamish

Hamish — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:56:46 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:10:28 +0000

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.

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 05:24:40 +0000

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?

By: John Grono

John Grono — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:17:29 +0000

Lulu, are you implying that women do the shopping in the supermarket for men?

By: LuLu

LuLu — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:36:09 +0000

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.

By: Brit

Brit — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:48:41 +0000

Brut, Lynx and the like – you should all be ashamed of yourselves. You’re a bunch of hollow heads !

By: James

James — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:26:48 +0000

where’s the horse?

By: David@luvyawork

David@luvyawork — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:21:05 +0000

@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.

By: The Ruff Stuff

The Ruff Stuff — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:18:23 +0000

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.

By: Joey

Joey — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:17:15 +0000

No matter how sexy the woman is or who’s not wearing a seatbelt, it’s a crap ad.

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:16:00 +0000

It’s just an awful ad. Full stop.

By: Zoe

Zoe — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:03:04 +0000

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…

By: Singo

Singo — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:41:33 +0000

Why does the black guy have to ride in the boot of the car?

By: Zoe

Zoe — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:38:18 +0000

Let’s face it, it’s just a sh*t ad. Too bad the guys aren’t hot too!