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