Ten’s naked Biggest Loser trainer ads cleared

Michelle-bridges naked

Ten's publicity shot of a naked Michelle Bridges

Near naked pictures of Biggest Loser trainers Michelle Bridges and Tiffiny Hall have been cleared by the Advertising Standards Board following complaints from the public.

The images were used in outdoor including bus backs and print campaigns to promote the show.

One complaint said: “You are abusing the minds of the children when allowing these sorts of ads to filter through. As a parent I am trying to do the best I can to bring up good children for the future.”

Another said: “I do not expect to find in a main stream paper a large ad featuring a naked woman. I was offended and object.” 

Tiffiny-hall naked

Tiffiny Hall

However Ten argued:

“The images are not sexually suggestive. Michelle and Tiffiny are not posed in a sexually suggestive or provocative manner, nor is there any sexual innuendo. While Michelle appears naked except for her sneakers, care has been taken to ensure her arms and legs obscure her breasts and genitalia. Hence nudity is implied rather than actually depicted. Nor do the images exploit or degrade women. The images are consistent with the overall advertising campaign which features tastefully shot images of the program’s health and fitness experts.

“The campaign was shot by one of the world’s best photographers, Karin Catt, who has worked with President Clinton, President Bush and the Dalai Lama. The idea behind the campaign is that with the right guidance everyone can be a happier person.”

The ASB accepted Ten’s argument, ruling: “The Board considered that because the program is known to be about body image, fitness and weight loss the image has direct relevance to the product being advertised. The Board considered that although Ms Bridges is naked, the pose was not sexualised and was not sexually suggestive.



  1. Mike
    26 Feb 12
    5:17 pm

  2. Read Brendan O’Neill’s article in yesterday’s Weekend Australian, and you’ll get his insight that our world is FULL of people just waiting, begging to be offended.
    Just so they can complain and be morally outraged.
    Then they can go after the ‘offender’ and perhaps lynch them, legally or otherwise.

    Their ‘offence radars” are permanently switched to high, trawling the globe for reasons to be annoyed. Now we’ve got committees doing their bidding.


    Why are these ads even being analysed? What have we come to?
    A couple of beautiful women celebrating their beauty requires a committee to analyse and approve?
    What an indictment of our society, and the mealy-mouthed, tiny-minded people who enable this idiocy.
    It’s time we as a society rose up and crushed these complainers. “Offend” them as much and as often as we can. Treat their complaints with contempt, and ignore them. Then one day we might enjoy true freedom of expression.

  3. Simon
    26 Feb 12
    6:13 pm

  4. Won’t somebody think of the children? Etc etc.


  5. Groucho
    26 Feb 12
    6:54 pm

  6. @Mike : well said. These people are a waste of oxygen and skin. The scary thing is that they have children.

  7. John
    26 Feb 12
    8:26 pm

  8. It IS about freedom of choice — but not the freedom of choice for lazy advertising creatives to force nudity on the public… It’s the freedom of choice the community loses by not being able to opt out of pathetic campaigns like these.

  9. David Dyer
    27 Feb 12
    12:05 am

  10. Yes, it’s about FOC (freedom of choice), but these images might soon lead to naughty fan pictures of them on the net, speaking of which, get on to making some and putting them on deviantART fast, before Shine Australia/Network 10 gets to banning them. Not that they haven’t done that…yet!

  11. DT
    27 Feb 12
    1:09 pm

  12. I don’t think these ads are offensive … but where are the naked ads of the two male trainers?

  13. Thomas Dodson
    27 Feb 12
    1:46 pm

  14. I agreed with DT- not that I want to see the two male trainers, but that does seem a little sexist. Why arent they there?

  15. Damo
    27 Feb 12
    2:45 pm

  16. Is there a council I can complain to about the complainers? I find their constant ramming of their opinions as the only valid ones down my throat offensive.

  17. SC
    27 Feb 12
    3:08 pm

  18. I was surprised when I first saw this campaign. It’s unnecessary nudity to grab a few extra viewers. The show is not about the trainers, it’s about the contestant’s journey.

    It may not be sexually explicit but it still reinforces a culture where only skinny is acceptible (i know i don’t have time to work out all day) and people are judged by their appearance. This is where it is potentially damaging to children.

    It’s as bad as any underwear or swim wear ad – but still – I don’t need to see naked people pushed in my face on my way to work. This photo shoot might be better placed in a health magazine with an audience who look up to these trainers.

  19. chris
    27 Feb 12
    5:04 pm

  20. Yes, John, nudity is evil

  21. chris
    27 Feb 12
    5:35 pm

  22. Yes, underwear and swimwear ads are bad_no one should be confronted with nakedness

  23. Dave the gay art director
    27 Feb 12
    6:27 pm

  24. Hey I want to see the male trainers nude!

    But it’s a double standard and one seemingly that women accept – they get naked, sexual etc to promote things or themselves even when they have talent.

    E.g. Madonna, J-Lo etc – you don’t see men sitting vampishly naked or moving their bits for a video…

    It would be nice to see an attractive female singer, not play the tramp angle and just rely on their talent.

    I bet the people behind the ad would never have asked the male trainers to pose naked like that.

  25. Red
    27 Feb 12
    8:17 pm

  26. Ok I’ve red the full complaint and review (and there were pics of the men naked too but only from their waist up, and thought that the complaints went from reasonable to blow out.

    The ones that mentioned the ad should just be placed in an appropriate spot, ie, health mag and not in the view of children of all ages – I totally agree with. It’s not just the nudity it’s the placement and suggestion (as ads always do) that it’s ok to have your pic taken with your clothes off. I don’t want kids to think that’s ok, and think their campaign slogan (which was with the pics) “learn to love yourself” has more to do with the topics listed on their website e.g. listening to music that you like, find a fulfilling cause/job/activity – than with nudity.

    Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. Just put them where they’re appropriate for G viewing. Even art galleries have the sign up warning that there’s nudy stuff coming up.

  27. Red
    27 Feb 12
    8:25 pm

  28. Oh the thing that ticked me off about channel 10’s response was claiming that this was G rated and so was the show that showed nudity and suitable for children – what the?!
    Hard to believe since the show, by regulation, has to be in an adult time slot, after 7pm most days.

  29. Norm
    28 Feb 12
    3:33 am

  30. Nudity implied rather than depicted? Since when does nudity only apply to the private parts and not the other 95% of the body? Absolutely offensive to see this on the back of a Transperth bus, completely in your face. Also not sure which “community” the ASB is living in, certainly not mine. Their reasoning that the community would not find this offensive is baseless and wrong.

  31. Dimi
    4 Mar 12
    12:57 pm

  32. They’re not even nude you fucking dickhead prudes.
    I bet all of you who find these pics offensive are either fat lards, religious morons and/or just sad pathetic wastes of life that have nothing better to do than to complain abaout everything instead of appreciate beautiful bodies depicted in thought provoking poses.
    I wonder if you’ve even bothered to look at yourselves naked in the mirror…lo and behold you have genitals and are in fact covered in NAKED FLESH OH MY FUCKING GOD!
    Quick run to your priest and repent!
    The serpents flesh has consumed you.

    Fuckwits. Take it for what it is and learn to love yourself and everyone else.
    It’s advertising, it’s done it’s job now shut the fuck up,.

  33. Andrew
    12 Mar 12
    4:00 pm

  34. I outraged by these ads. Well, outraged by the fact that The Commando didn’t do one too ……