The ad watchdog failed adland and consumers in 2018
The role of Australia’s ad watchdog is to “uphold prevailing community values”, but the list of ads it banned this year – and those which it has allowed to remain on the air in the past – indicate it is wildly out of touch, argues Mumbrella’s editor Vivienne Kelly.
In December, Ad Standards revealed which ads it has received the most complaints about throughout 2018.
Topping the list was Sportsbet’s ‘Manscaping’ campaign with 793 complaints.
“793?”, you say, indignantly. “That’s not that many. I hear way more people complain about WPP’s new logo/ the hours they are expected to work in adland/ the amount of My Kitchen Rules scheduled to be on television next year/ the lack of on-screen chemistry between Georgie Gardner and Karl Stefanovic/ the archaic radio ratings system!”
You are correct, it’s not that many, but we all know the noisiest wheel gets the most grease, and for context, last year’s chart-topping most-hated ad was the fifth execution of Ultra Tune’s Unexpected Situations campaign, and it only generated 359 complaints.
This article didn’t even get to the junk food ads targeting kids. To say Australia’s ad watchdog is a joke is an insult humour.
Vivienne – I agree…. the community standards test seems oddly applied ….
If the manscaping ad exposes children to these concepts what to the ads by some of the brands promoting ‘precision trimmes’ to women do?
WEF notes the UK is about to prohibit ads that stereotype (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/no-more-dodgy-women-drivers-as-uk-bans-sexist-stereotypes-in-ads) – wonder how many ads would pass this test in Australia?
I agree that “the community standards test seems oddly applied” but there will always be a problem with any board or standards body assembled to prevent poor or bad standards.
Who is tasked with designing the template? Whose morals are we applying to this good standards template, which must surely consist of several templates designed to work within the overall frame?
The world is populated by millions of individuals, some are nervous, some bold, some religious, pious, broadminded etc. The old adage about – all the people – some of the people etc, is maybe boring, but nevertheless true.
It takes many years for most individuals to come to grips with which of the lesser evils are perhaps truly bad. We talk about children based upon our own childhood in a world which is constantly changing, we take offense at quasi political or social issues which are also constantly on the change, and essentially mean more to one than they mean to another.
Taste or the absence of it is a good leveler; identifying deliberate abuse with malice or simple satire is another. The attempted control of racism, often achieves at best a heavily cloaked snake pit, and can even provide a weapon that also doubles as shield. The timeless argument about gender, which has been raging for millennia ( though each generation imagines that they invented it) is a cyclical trap for anyone who lives longer than about 15 years.
Censorship is fraught with difficulties.
The worst ad of the year was iSelect. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and thank heavens at least 716 voiced theirs.
I agree. Should have been banned for being horrendous, if for nothing else
Is it worse to expose your kids to a bloke manscaping his mushroom cloud, or to an ad that actively promotes an activity as potentially destructive as gambling?
The ASB can’t see the forest for the trees.
So by AdStandards….standards: TVC’s shouldn’t be subtle about presenting stereotypes, sex, violence, or your ad will be banned?
Cheers. Got it.
*I’m so glad I don’t watch FreeTV. NETFLIX doesn’t have ads*
The annoying thing about the ad watchdog is that the ads go to air – regardless if they are worthy or not and THEN the complaints come in. Too late. Shouldn’t there be a set standard before they are released?
“………….it’s fucking outrageous that this ad could be banned for its portrayal of sex and bodies, while Ultra Tune’s nonsense………..”
Really classy Vivienne – we have to be exposed to your tirades and vulgar language in your articles.
The ASB is an independent body, Ultra Tune doesn’t make the rules. Ultra Tune has had to modify some of its TVC’s to fit within the designated guidelines and the company has.
Hope you’re enjoying the Australian Open, Charlie Sheen and the Rubber Girls. These Unexpected Situations are called a “parody”, sadly New Age Millenniums such as yourself look for something to be outraged by to justify your “journalistic” (and I use the term loosely) online existence and fuel inane commentary such as this diatribe.
The masses are speaking with their patronage, dollars and general apathy to this tripe you roll out annually. If anyone is out of step with the general community consensus I would suggest it isn’t the ASB but rather your good self.
Nobody would be outraged if it wasn’t a direct target towards demeaning and objectifying women only. There was a two minute noodle ad years ago which implied men only lasted less than two minutes in bed, yet that was immediately taken off air because it was deemed offensive and demeaning to men. There was also a lynx commercial implying older men stink more but that to was immediately taken off air because men were offended. I don’t consider myself a crazy feminist, but you cannot make jokes about one gender (women) and get away with it while the other (men) seem to have such a difficult time taking a joke. Look at all the men up in arms over that new Gillette ad (which I don’t like the ad either) but if you’re going to attack women than you should attack men just as much. It seems when men are offended the ads are removed immediately, but when women are, they are not removed. It’s sexist. Plus, many men complained about the Ultra Tune commercial because they have young daughters and they don’t want them seeing women represented as stupid and overly sexualised. Mike Tyson was also in those ads (a known rapist and woman beater) so what are these ads actually implying? Again with Charlie Sheen, the guy has AIDS and it implies he sleeps with the women which would also be condoning the spread of a disease which kills millions a year – and that’s an illegal act. The commercials are gross and downright disrespectful and offensive to women. Also, makes those government ads about domestic violence look like an absolute joke and a waste of money. I just don’t agree with any ads demeaning human beings (man or woman) especially when mental health issues and suicide rates are higher than ever. A young 21 year old woman was just horrifically murdered and raped and the guy hasn’t even been caught, meanwhile channel nine deems it plausible to play these vile ads during a woman’s tennis match at the Australian Open. Just imagine if that was your daughter? And then you had to come home and see that filth plastered on our television screens. Anyone who supports these ads is a disgusting creep. The media should have more responsibility when it comes to the impact they have on people’s mindsets.