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.
More interesting still, is that Ultra Tune’s lazy sexist ad from 2017 wasn’t banned by the watchdog – despite apparently lengthy disagreements between board members – but Sportsbet’s ‘manscaping’ one from this year, was.
Ad Standards said the ‘manscaping’ ad – which you can watch below – could be considered sexual by many members of the public and showcased an inappropriate level of nudity to an audience, which could include children (despite earlier saying the nudity was only “implied”).
“The Panel considered that young children would not understand the context of the advertisement but considered that a depiction suggesting removal or trimming of pubic hair would be considered by most members of the community to be inappropriate to be viewed by a broad audience that would include children,” the ruling said.
So even though children won’t know what’s going on in the advert, or why, it’s still too sexual for them to be exposed to, according to Ad Standards.
Furthermore, “The Panel considered that while ‘manscaping’ may be a concept understood by many adults, references to or suggestions of the trimming or removal of pubic hair is considered sexual by many members of the community,” the ruling said.
So are we worried that children will be sexualised by a man sitting in the sink removing his pubes, or are we worried adults will project their own conservative world-views about public hair being inherently tied to sex onto this ad, and be outraged by its apparently unavoidable sexual connotations?
Ad Standards itself said children won’t understand the context, so even if they laugh along with the ad, or watch its every frame intently, if they’re devoid of the sexual background and connotations which lead us adults to think the man is preparing for a dirty, dirty sex-fest – then I can only imagine it will go over their heads (a bit like me screaming out the lyrics to the Spice Girls “2 become 1” lyrics in the 1990s (and oh so many other songs), only to years later realise what I was actually crowing about).
Ultimately Ad Standards determined Sportsbet’s ad did not “treat the issue of sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity”, and thus breached Section 2.4 of the Code (“Advertising or Marketing Communication shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience”).
But here’s the thing. He wasn’t nude. He wasn’t having sex. And I don’t think his sexuality – in terms of which gender he is interested in, and the wider meaning of the term, his general sexual nature, desires and disposition, and how he appears sexually to others – comes into his shaving and / or betting habits at all.
Whilst it’s interesting to view a scenario in which men’s bodies are being watched, scrutinised and policed in a manner normally reserved for women, for me, this ad is so far from sexual it’s not even funny. The guy in this ad is in no way sexualised or being positioned as a sexual object.
I think my news editor Paul Wallbank may be right when he argued on our podcast that perhaps this ad set itself up for additional scrutiny, criticism and complaining because it promotes a betting company. And with betting companies, it’s highly likely that if they’re not your thing, you bloody hate them – especially if they show manscaping. Won’t somebody please think of the children!
I do actually fall into the camp that believes gambling is a destroyer of individuals, families and communities (the prevailing standards of which Ad Standards is supposed to be representing), but if we’re discussing the ad watchdog, that’s not the issue at play.
The issue at play, apparently, is sex, sexuality and bodies on television.
In that sense, it’s fucking outrageous that this ad could be banned for its portrayal of sex and bodies, while Ultra Tune’s nonsense – which frequently exploits women’s bodies and treats them as sexual objects with so much innuendo and old-school lad’s-mag themes it’s too exhausting to even list – can remain on the air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjFcEvTl1NQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6jQZVGfbw
Next up on Ad Standards’ list was an iSelect ad featuring a woman temporarily enraged by her insurance premiums climbing. To expel the rage, she enthusiastically attacks a piñata at a children’s birthday party, much to the apparent distress of the children around her.
This ad, after 716 complaints, was also banned on the basis that it was “very violent and menacing”.
I’m sorry, what?
The distress of the children in this ad lasts less than five seconds – I counted. You first see a child flinch (I wouldn’t even go so far as to say he looks scared, and the other children look more confused than anything) three seconds in. By the eight-second mark, the children are joyously screaming and collecting the treats which descended upon them from the violated and battered piñata.
As Mumbrella’s deputy editor Josie Tutty pointed out in the Mumbrellacast, piñatas are supposed to be hit with a bat. There is nothing unnecessarily violent about this ad. (Won’t somebody think of the piñata?)
If the children are ‘scared’ in this ad (and I would argue they’re not) it lasts for five seconds – which, frankly, is less time than I spend in fear of what is under my bed if I let my leg dangle over the side in the middle of the night in a failed attempt to regulate my body temperature, and I turn 30 in March.
The advertiser had to come out after the ruling and assure the community it “does not tolerate domestic violence”.
Jesus.
Neither do I.
I agree that not tolerating domestic violence SHOULD be a prevailing community standard (I say should be, rather than IS, because its ongoing prevalence in the community and lack of action at higher levels indicates it may not be yet).
This ad is nowhere close to that though. I completely disagree with Ad Standards’ summation that it is unsafe for children to be around this lolly-seeking woman.
Thank goodness for those few Panel members who apparently saw sense: “A minority of the Panel considered that the depiction of a woman using a stick violently in the context of a piñata game would not be considered unsafe behaviour as this was consistent with the accepted use of a piñata in a party setting.”
This ad also received complaints for how it portrayed women. This aspect of the numerous complaints was dismissed by Ad Standards, but, honestly, if we’re going to ban an ad from our screens for its portrayal of women, we should have canned Westfield’s abomination from earlier this year, which featured mums “staying true to themselves”.
The press release crowed about how the ad steered clear of stereotyping mums, whilst showcasing how they switch between roles “from cooking with the kids and experimenting with the latest fashion, to catching up with her mum tribe”.
Arr, yes, stereotype, be gone!
The Westfield ad sticks in my mind for the rage it induced in me in March – somebody find me a piñata – so, for me, it has to be the worst of the year. I’m sure there are other offenders out there though, so let me know your thoughts on the best and worst of 2018 (and if you think Ad Standards had a successful, or a silly, year).
And if we won’t ban the Westfield ad, can we have a pre-emptive strike against Ultra Tune’s ad featuring Charlie Sheen, which I hear could be due to hit screens around the Australian Open.
Let’s call ‘time’ on that campaign, and banning ads for outdated ideas about sex, hair and how women should behave.
A version of this article first appeared in Mumbrella's Best of the Week newsletter on Saturday. Sign up here
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.
User ID not verified.
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?
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
The worst ad of the year was iSelect. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and thank heavens at least 716 voiced theirs.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
I agree. Should have been banned for being horrendous, if for nothing else
User ID not verified.
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*
User ID not verified.
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?
User ID not verified.
“………….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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.