Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2013 | Page 32

cheek in an attempt to demonstrate that the deal on offer is such good value that everyone should hear about it. The Board considered that the advertisement is insensitive to people with hearing problems but that it is not discriminatory or demeaning. An advertisement for Murray Goulburn (0362/13) was found in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code for vilifying a section of society on the grounds of disability. The TV advertisement featured a woman in the kitchen trying to separate cheese slices to make sandwiches as a young girl watches her. The girl is holding a doll that is missing an eye. The woman explains to the girl that the sandwiches are not ready and says to the girl that she should go outside for a while. A young boy arrives next to the girl and he has one eye covered with a patch. The woman in the advertisement speaks to the young girl about taking her one eyed doll outside until the sandwiches are ready, and the woman refers to the doll as a freaky little Cyclops. The entire room seemed horrified by her actions as they did not understand the context of the comment and misinterpreted the comment as directed to the one eyed boy. In this case, the Board recognised that there is a genuine community concern regarding the vilification of children and adults who have physical disabilities. The majority of the Board considered that this depiction, even if seen as accidental, can contribute to negative attitudes towards people with an eye condition or disability. The Board considered that although the woman did appear embarrassed, her comment, taken in the context of the young boy with an eye patch was a negative comment about a child with a physical disability and did amount to a depiction that vilified a section of the community on account of a disability. Discrimination against men Complaints concerning discrimination or vilification against men commonly refer to the level of acceptability the advertisement would have if roles were reversed and women were in the spotlight. The Board’s role is to consider each advertisement on its own merit and as such, addressing hypothetical alternatives is not part of 30 their role. Complaints against this provision in 2013 concerned the portrayal of men as children, inactive or incompetent at performing certain domestic tasks. An advertisement by Pfizer Australia (0134/13 & 0176/13) attracted complaints in 2013 with concerns raised about the implication that women are more active than men. The Board considered the promotion of the calcium supplement was apparent as the reason the woman appeared more active in the advertisement, and did not discriminate or vilify against men. A man with his shirt off being admired by women (Coca Cola - 0200/13) was also cleared by the Board as the man appeared to enjoy the attention and the advertisement was presented in a light hearted manner. Advertisements cleared by the Board in 2013 include a woman implying her husband is a child (Toyota Motor Corp Australia – 0207/13) a man inadequately attempting to fit a child seat in a car (Virgin Money – 0065/13) and the inference that men do not help with cooking (Baiada Poultry - 0320/13). In these cases, the Board’s view was that the advertisements were mildly humorous and not negative or demeaning to men and dismissed complaints. Discrimination against women Complaints concerning discrimination against women generally attract a higher number of complaints. Complaints about imagery of women presented in a sexualised manner can be considered under Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of the Code depending on the content of the advertisement and nature of the complaint. Cases dismissed under Section 2.1 in 2013 include the portrayal of women bending and stretching in a Pilates class (Yum Restaurants – 0111/13), cheerleaders dancing (Dapco – 0307/13) and an image of a female umpire’s behind (Sportingbet – 0175/13). In these cases the viewing of women’s bodies was not considered predatory or objectifying. A billboard which attracted complaints in 2013 for Boardroom of Melbourne (0110/13) featured a woman looking suggestively at the camera with the text, you may not be the first, but really... do you care? The Board noted the complainant’s concerns that the billboard was misogynistic and not appropriate for outdoor display. However, in the Board’s view the advertisement suggests that the women who work at the Boardroom of Melbourne may have had other clients. They considered that as their job is to entertain clients, this suggestion does not in itself discriminate against or vilify women. Another billboard considered by the Board featured a woman sipping beer with the tagline she is a thing of beauty (Lion - 0011/13). Community members raised concerns over the terminology and interpreted the text as describing women and beer as a similar commodity. In the Board’s view however, the phrase was positive, and not discriminatory towards women. A complaint for Schwartzkopf (0418/13) concerned the harassment of women and sexism. The advertisement featured a ute pulling up at traffic lights and a passenger calling out, hey sexy in order to attract a woman in the next car’s attention. When she turns round it is evident that the person is actually a man with long hair. In this case, the Board considered the overall tone and theme to be lighthearted and humorous. The men in the ute who called out were made to appear foolish rather than condoning such behaviour. The Board considered the advertisement did not discriminate on account of gender, and dismissed the complaint. Trivialising childbirth was the focus of complaints for an advertisement by AAMI (0270/13) where a woman is seen to be multitasking; working and taking phone calls while in labour giving birth to her child. The Board considered this advertisement was unrealistic, humorous and that most members of the community would recognise that this was highly unlikely