Outdoor ad industry joins sexploitation debate: pre-vetting is too expensive
The Outdoor Media Association has waded into the debate on sexploitation in advertising triggered by an article written by Melinda Tankard Reist last week.
The OMA firstly took issue with the author’s claim that “porn inspired representations of women in the public space have become the norm”.
It also remarked that Tankard Reist’s call for all outdoor ads to be pre-vetted was not economically viable. “The cost of pre-vetting 30,000 advertisements for the sake of seven simply cannot be justified,” read a statement from Charmaine Moldrich, the OMA’s CEO.
She also conceded that while the industry “has not judged correctly 100% of the time”, it was taking steps “to improve on its very good record.”
The OMA’s statement:
The comment by Melinda Tankard Reist that “porn inspired representations of women in the public space have become the norm” is simply inaccurate. In fact, the outdoor advertising industry posed 30,000 advertisements in 2010, of which 66 attracted complaints. The Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) found that complaints about 7 of the advertisements should be upheld. In other words, 99.98% of outdoor advertisements in 2010 were in accordance with prevailing community standards.
This record is hardly the mark of a renegade industry that propagates a multitude of raunchy advertisements, from which the community needs protection. The allegation that outdoor advertising is dominated by sexualised images is simply unfounded in the Australian context.
The industry accepts that it has not judged correctly 100% of the time, and it is taking steps to improve on its very good record. In an industry initiative, the OMA has recently commenced a regular program of training for the industry, to help its members better understand and apply the various advertising codes of practice. These training sessions provide the industry with clarity about where the line in the sand is drawn, and have enhanced the already high compliance with the self-regulatory codes.
The industry has also recently adopted a Content Review Policy, under which contentious advertisements must be referred to the OMA for copy advice before they are displayed. If the advice is that an advertisement is likely to breach a code of practice, the advertisement must not be displayed. Our members are using this service regularly, and several advertisements have been kept from display or modified prior to display since the Policy came into effect in June. This new second layer of review before advertisements are displayed will lead to a reduction in the small number of times the industry misjudges community standards.
Ms Tankard Reist suggests that advertisements should be pre-vetted before they are displayed. In considering such a system of pre-vetting, one must weigh up the costs with the benefit to be achieved. In this case, the cost of pre-vetting 30,000 advertisements for the sake of 7 simply cannot be justified. However, the continuous improvements discussed above are measures that are appropriate to the scale of the issues. These measures will lead to improved outcomes for a fraction of the cost of formally pre-vetting all advertisements.
If Melinda Tankard Reist had her way those doing the vetting would be wholy made up of the Australian Christian Lobby.
User ID not verified.
It’s seems hysterical females have been running around like chooks with their heads cut off, wailing “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” for a long time.
I believe they used to cover up the legs of tables back in the Victorian age less one of these delicate flowers would get the vapors, and swoon.
http://tinyurl.com/maude-flanders
User ID not verified.
What waffle – what waffle. I woulda thought if Melinda Tankard Reist had her way those doing the vetting would be wholy made up of the Australian Feminist Lobby. But then I wouldn’t want to second guess her like many seem to. Waffle on – what waffle.
User ID not verified.
The OMA’s statement is misleading.
This in particular:
“In fact, the outdoor advertising industry posed 30,000 advertisements in 2010, of which 66 attracted complaints. The Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) found that complaints about 7 of the advertisements should be upheld. In other words, 99.98% of outdoor advertisements in 2010 were in accordance with prevailing community standards.”
Only 7 ads breached the code? Well that must mean self-regulation is working! *not really no.*
The reason only 7 complaints were upheld is because the Advertising Standards Board consistently rules in favour of advertisers, dismissing legitimate complaints. Why? Because then they get to boast that “99.98% of outdoor advertisements in 2010 were in accordance with prevailing community standards” and the Advertising Standards Board is doing an amazing job and self regulation works. *hi-fives all round*
The truth is, the ASB dismiss loads of legitimate complaints about advertising. The Pole Dancing Mother once described as ‘the most complained about ad in Australia’ is one example of this. The ad for ‘Bardot’ jeans featuring a topless young woman on the side of a bus is another example. Except for the recent example of ‘Rules of Rugby’ ad, complaints about sexist Lynx ads are constantly dismissed. Complaints about ads for strip clubs also dismissed.
Asking the Ad Standards Board – part of the ad industry – to make a decision about what does and doesn’t breach the code (which is also a very loose code open to wide interpretation) is like asking the Tobacco industry to make decisions about tobacco advertising.
Pre-vetting too expensive? Fine, get rid of self-regulation.
User ID not verified.
OMG Kate… won’t you give it a rest…
User ID not verified.
Power to the graffiti artist, who makes it visually known where their disgust lies.
Cudos for coopers for making a successful, visually pleasing slightly amusing non-sexist beer ad*. Screw super-dry for doing the opposite; because yes Girls Drink Beer To!**
*most good pubs have a green policy”
**wet but dry”
User ID not verified.
@Alison F – that’s not the same Kate (me) who was commenting on the other thread 😉 Cheers
User ID not verified.
Kate, have a look at the Board Member profiles … http://www.adstandards.com.au/.....erprofiles
That sure seems like a pretty good cross-section of Aussies ranging from those who have been in the public eye to relative unknowns. They cover all ages, both genders, all sorts of industries and cultural backgrounds.
However, you seem to think that because they only found 7 Out-Of-Home complaints to be worthy of upholding as some sort of conspiracy as ” the ASB dismiss loads of legitimate complaints about advertising”. The fact is these 20 people arrived at a different consensus to your opinion. That does not mean that they dismissed load of legitimate complaints but that in your single opinion you would have upheld more than they did. They have been charged with the responsibility to make these decisions within rigorous guidelines – rather than firing off an opinion piece.
You see, this is a form of limited democracy. It only takes a single person to fire off a complaint and it HAS to be investigated. This ensures that not a single Australian individual is disenfranchised and they have a voice that MUST be heard. Indeed, one could argue that in many cases that single individual has a disproportionate voice. This is why there is such a wide and varied panel to investigate every complaint so that the voice of a single individual does not (in the opinion of the panel) carry disproportionate weight,
User ID not verified.
What about online platforms clearing their acts up? Why is an ad that is banned from Australian television allowed to be aired to Aussie Internet users from various video sites?
Why are comments on Video sites and other social media networks allowed to go wild, ending up in obscene or racist slurs, which would never be published by a responsible publisher?
Google claim not to be evil, yet many of their products are airing content that at times is nothing but. Google certainly take ad dollars from Porn companies, gambling companies, companies airing sexist and extremist views…
Over time surely the web will undergo regulation?
User ID not verified.
My Goodness…. Kate has a twin then, hey?
User ID not verified.
Well said, first Kate! : )
First of all, until last year, I didn’t know I could make a complaint- or how. Many others are also unaware that putting up with inappropriate, highly sexualised ads is not the only option. Others think that there’s no point in complaining, because it won’t make a difference. Really, it’s not like the ASB do a particularly stand-up job reviewing complaints. Most they will dismiss.
Then there are the complaints that actually do get made, because people are outraged, concerned or offended enough to spend their limited free time on the ASB’s website. Mostly, they are dismissed on some ridiculous basis. And this is proof that the current system is effective? It seems to me that all it proves is that it is in the ad industry’s best interest to regulate themselves.
If the ASB refuses to consider pre-vetting, even on the rare occasions when they do uphold complaints, e.g. Calvin Klein rape billboard, the offending ad has been there for months. Not good enough. Self regulation is not working.
User ID not verified.