Ad ruled offside because of expression on naked models’ faces
An outdoor poster for skin brand Ella Bache has failed to win approval because of the expression on the naked models’ faces.
However, a version featuring the models smiling has received the nod instead.
Ella Bache today described the move as “one of the most curious decisions in recent advertising history”.
The ruling came from the Outdoor Media Association which offers a service to its members – most of Australia’s large outdoor advertising companies – of assessing whether an ad is likely to fit in with the industry’s voluntary guidelines.
If a member asks the OMA for advice, it is then obliged to follow it, and not post a billboard that it is advised it could breach the guidelines.
The process is separate to the industry’s Advertising Standards Board which makes rulings if a member of the public complains about an ad which has run.
Ella Bache described the OMA advice as inexplicable. The company’s creative director Faie Davis said: ” This bizarre decision is the epitome of political correctness, indicating that as a society we are becoming very fearful of putting a foot wrong, with the result that stymies creative thinking. In the past we have produced ads approved with nude men and women hugging and kissing, yet now we have an industry self-regulator now making judgments on the different sexual mores of a smile or serious expression of models.”
The campaign is the first for Ella Bache since Davis rejoined the company a few weeks ago.
But Charmaine Moldrich, CEO of the OMA told Mumbrella that she stood by the organisation’s call. She said: ‘Sometimes it’s a fine line. We felt that the image where they looked happy and in control they are empowered, but we felt that the image where they are staring down the camera they are more sexualised.”
What an indescribably idiotic decision!
Matched in its stupidity only by the explanation.
User ID not verified.
Australia is amazingly conservative. This is just bullshit.
User ID not verified.
Outdoor advertising : good decision to ban
Any other medium: Should be ok
User ID not verified.
OMA may have inadvertently done Ella Bache a favour because the ‘smiling’ pic is much more appealing and engaging in my opinion. The ‘staring’ pic is ho hum. But I’m only a woman and in the target audience so no doubt I’m wrong.
Do I agree this was worth a ‘ruling’? No, thats silly.
User ID not verified.
“We felt that the image where they looked happy and in control they are empowered, but we felt that the image where they are staring down the camera they are more sexualised.”
Wow, so in order to prevent anyone being offended the OMA release a statement that is far more offensive to all women than the ad could ever be.
What a joke. Is there a way the public can appeal this conservative decision?
User ID not verified.
In control??? The ad on the right they look like a bunch of giggling bimbos about to fall over the place. Sorry OMA but your reasoning is flawed.
User ID not verified.
Am I the only woman who smiles in the bedroom?
User ID not verified.
I agree with Ricki and disagree with Viewer.
User ID not verified.
agree, this is absolute bull.
smiling and provocative expressions do not always equate to empowerment. somewhat like faking an orgasm. what a load of nonsense.
where is the subtlety?
oh sorry, we illegitimised it in favour of falseness.
User ID not verified.
I tend to agree with the OMA on this one. Every time I saw outdoor photos on billboards of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd staring down the barrel of the lens, I felt it was sexualized. I knew I was getting f****d big time. 😉
User ID not verified.
Why do women need to be naked to sell skincare? I get the body beautiful angle and the non-conservative angle but still ask why naked women need to be on our billboards, smiling and ’empowered’ with their clothes off or frowning and sexualised – either way there are other ways to depict women and skin beauty products that could be as effective as nudity.
User ID not verified.
This decision sounds more “You’re not allowed to look intelligent when naked. Depth is not allowed. Put on a flirty smile instead.”.
In my opinion, this decision is far more offensive than anything in the ad.
User ID not verified.
I think the left ad is far more powerful – the right ad has smiles with no feeling. Impersonal. Detached. Hollow. False. Awkward.
User ID not verified.
I agree with OMA’s ruling actually.
User ID not verified.
When do women ever get together and sit around naked in close little groups like this, awkwardly hiding their nipples from each other? Who cares if they’re smiling or not, how realistic is it in the first place? And why do women keep falling for this crap? I hope my daughter gets better examples of being a woman than this and the other junk the industry spews out.
User ID not verified.
I’d say it’s because in the non-smiley one the expressions resemble the expressions on the faces of the three from TRUE BLOOD who featured prominently on syd buses a few mths back
User ID not verified.
As part of the target market – Neither ad would tempt me to use the product.
I am tempted to agree with the OWA though.
User ID not verified.
I love slice of life advertising.
This decision seems to pervert the course if reason. Were people actually paid to sit in a room and spend time on this! Seriously! This isn’t self regulation but justification of existence. Time to send these old librarians home to read 50 shades of grey…
User ID not verified.
Do you know, I suspect that most men looking for a shot of sexual stimulation, are very unlikely to be searching out Ella Baché ads.
Today there are simply too many options when it comes to erotica and what the general public loves to label as “Porno.”
How images of naked people and /or people making love or otherwise engaged in sexual intercourse, can be considered pornographic has been beyond my ability to comprehend for some years.
How could the Ella Baché women in either picture be, so called, sexualised or non sexualised? We are all born (OK most of us) with sex, mine is male, the people in the Ella Baché ad are female. when we reach maturity, we are sexual beings and that is all there is to say about sexualisation.
Like those who point and say Porno, those who complain about ads such as the Ella Baché in question, are either politically or religiously motivated by a set of rules they have either had imposed upon them, or have settled upon for themselves, or have some kind of developmental block.
The pictures tell me that the women are enjoying their youth , their bodies and the luxury of fine skin care products. either as women who are not showing outward emotion, or as women who are. Of course any pervert could read a catalogue of interpretations into either, and so it seems can the ad police.
User ID not verified.