Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2013 | Page 51

Environmental Claims in Advertising and
Marketing Code
The ASB began administering complaints under
the Environmental Claims in Advertising and
Marketing Code on 1 January 2010. During 2012
the Board considered two advertisements under
the Environmental Code which were dismissed.
There were no complaints received in 2013
which related to the Environmental Claims in
Advertising and Marketing Code.

Other issues

In the interests of the advertising self-regulation
system and so that complainants are not left
without an entity to consider their concerns,
matters raised that are not strictly within Section
2, but are unable to be referred to any other
organisation are considered by the Board. Other
issues may include concerns over social values,

common decency and tastelessness. During 2013,
five cases raised issues under the other category.
An advertisement featuring images of women
exercising and being embarrassed by perspiration
marks on their gym clothing around their private
areas (Kimberly-Clark – 0241/13) was considered
by the Board under the other provision. The
Board noted the complainants’ concerns that the
advertisements featured references to a woman’s
bodily functions which could be embarrassing for
women, offensive and not appropriate for viewing
by children. However, in considering the audience
and context, the Board considered that the
advertisement presented the product appropriately
and treated the subject with appropriate sensitivity
and dismissed complaints.
As well as being considered under Sections
2.3, 2.4 and 2.6, the most complained about
advertisement in 2013 was also considered by
the Board under the other provision. The Lion

Review of Operations 2013

campaign running across TV (0398/13), billboard
(0415/13) and pay TV (0426/13) raised concerns
where a man’s mouth is seen to leave a man’s face
and then tell him it deserves a reward for all that
it has been put through.
Concerns addressed by the Board which did not
specifically fall under other sections of the Code
include complaints about the advertisement being
distasteful, disgusting, repulsive or unnecessary.
The Board’s view was that while some members
of the community may find the depiction of
the mouth repulsive and visually offensive, it
is not an image which is suggestive of violence
or that would breach community standards of
health and safety or sex, sexuality and nudity and
dismissed complaints.
The final case considered under other in 2013 was
for Vodafone Network (0338/13) where adults
have a superimposed child’s face. Complaints that
fell und