Mars’ naked mum ad deemed ‘morally wrong’ in complaint to ad watchdog
A complaint made to the ad watchdog about the morality of Mars Bar Australia’s recent life drawing ad has been dismissed.
The campaign, created by Clemenger BBDO Melbourne, features a boy in a life drawing class who realises the life model in front of him is his naked mother.
The complaint centred around the morality of being forced to draw a naked parent.
“My teenage child was offended as was I that any offspring should have to draw their parent nude,” it said.
“But to think the mother then comes and tells the offspring they have done a good job drawing her nude is a disgrace. This is morally wrong and children/offspring should not be around their parents naked – at any age.”
In its response to the complaint, Mars contends: “The complaint does not appear to be concerned about any actual nudity featured in the advertisement, of which there is very little… The setting of the advertisement is a life drawing class, and this respect there is nudity alluded to and very brief vision is shown of the model removing her gown, however, her buttocks, nipples and genital regions are not shown.”
Mars claims the ads’ creators “were very careful in terms of what was actually shown within the advertisement. There is no nudity for nudity’s sake.”
Mars goes on to explain how the nature of the ad is “light-hearted and jovial”, and “the reference is not in any way sexualised and there is certainly no sexual innuendo, simply a reference to the awkward situation in which a young male student finds himself in a life drawing class with his mother as the model.”
In its determination, the panel noted that the complainant’s main concern appeared to relate to the moral implications of a parent being naked in front of their child, rather than the actual nudity featured in the advertisement.
“The panel noted that it is not the role of the panel to make a determination based on moral or ethical issues, only on the actual content of the advertisement and whether it complies with the code,” it said.
“The panel noted that some members of the community may be uncomfortable with the representation of nudity in the advertisement, however considered that the level of nudity was mild and was not inappropriate for a broad audience which may include children.”
The panel determined that the advertisement did treat the issue of sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity and did not breach Section 2.4 of the code, which states: “Advertising or Marketing Communications shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience.”
Interesting that the first 2 ads that have made me laugh in a long time, both had to defend themselves against complaints. Are the complaining public responsible for all the garbage passing as TVC’s at the moment. Let’s more ads with “crazy”people dancing for joy.
User ID not verified.
I laughed myself silly when I saw the ad for the first time. “teenage child”? – how old is the mother? Looks like another example of millennials trying to drag us all back into the Victorian era! Good to see the panel is more in touch with the real world.
User ID not verified.
This could be an ad for anything. A lot of disciples of the E Bass institute, like Mars, end up producing these kind of generic ads. Annoyingly, we’re going to be seeing this execution an awful lot in the next few years.
User ID not verified.
Agree! Had a good chuckle and yes, not many ads deserve a positive response, ie the latest Westpac foe one.
User ID not verified.
Agree! Had a good chuckle and not offensive at all. What I find offensive are bank ads when they portray themselves as caring when they have been proved the complete opposite. No names but one starts with W.
User ID not verified.
keep up the funny stuff mars marketers, don’t listen to the prudes.
User ID not verified.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was not the teenager who complained? it was the mother “trying to drag us all back into the Victorian era!” Another example one of us boomers blaming those damn kids for something we did!
User ID not verified.
This was the funniest ad I have seen in a long time.
Dear offended people: shutup and go back to Millionaire Hot Seat safe spaces!
User ID not verified.
“This is morally wrong and children/offspring should not be around their parents naked – at any age.”
F*ck me, that sounds like a fun household to be brought up in – they sounds like the Mum in ‘Carrie’.
User ID not verified.
A disgrace? Wow – what sort of a life does that person live? They’re seriously screwing their kid up if they’re so afraid of letting them see their body.
The only immoral part of the ad was the crap it was selling.
User ID not verified.
There are some seriously sick people in Australia if they are offended by this ad.
User ID not verified.
Haha that is actually “my” Mum, sure it’s a bit weird and all, but yeah It was just for a laugh, I found it funny. And if there was anybody that should be offended I’m #1. I’m not offended, it’s an ad. And it wasn’t explicit or rude. Not going to lie that I was embarrassed seeing it on my mates tv in an commercial break haha. But it is lighthearted, and I don’t think you are supposed to read into anymore…..it’s not a cryptic crossword or subliminal messaging. I can see why people got angry at the see you in the Northern Territory ad campaign for sure…but comedy..meh comedy has always been about getting people out of their comfort zone, it really helps society break down barriers. Unfortunately this ad’s message was just one of mirth…I believe it holds no truth or underlying morals or even a hidden agenda. Look, it’s still not my cup of tea (obviously hahaha it’s me mum!) but I’m not offended. Maybe just a little embarrassed haha.
User ID not verified.
Also, Millenials are aged between 22 – 37. Sooo… not even close to being relevant.
User ID not verified.
You are quite correct, it was the mother. Today’s teenagers are not millennials, today’s mothers are. We boomers are now the grandparents (or hadn’t you noticed time flying by!!!???)
User ID not verified.
When you consider that those who who sit in unelected, unrepresentative authority to “judge” appropriateness of advertising are smug, PC motherf****ers, it’s not surprising that they’d approve of an ad which alludes to such a practice.
User ID not verified.
Looking at the age of the mother and the son in the advert, neither are millennial. The mother would be Gen X? Or since Millennial definitions can cover 1982 to 2004 (yep 34 yo and 14 yo all in the same group, it is a meaningless group).
User ID not verified.
Why not relevant? Mother at 24; teenage (13 year old) “child” at 37…. Sounds spot on demographically to me.
User ID not verified.
Your comment doesn’t even make sense. So “people” didn’t ban an ad because it contains people doing something you don’t agree with, that someone who is just as prudish as you complained about, and somehow that involves those people being PC. Whatever. Go back to the letters page in the Gaily Telegraph.
User ID not verified.
*Daily Telegraph
That was a genuine typo.
User ID not verified.
Yeh, lighten up!
User ID not verified.