Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2015

• -- n advertisement on a van, showing an A artistic image of a naked older man on a motorcycle (Damien Bredberg Stills + Motion Professional Services – 0116/15). -- n outdoor advertisement featuring A an artistic image showing a woman’s bottom in lingerie (Michael Warshall Picturemaker – 0228/15). -- poster featuring large personal portraits A of men and women in lingerie (Starshots – 0289/15). -- billboard featuring an artistic image of A a woman in lingerie reclining on a chair (Robyn Hills Photography – 0394/15). television advertisement which featured A scenes and colours being projected on the backs and bodies of seemingly naked people (Samsung Electronics Aust Pty Ltd – 0285/15). dvertising which uses nudity in a humorous, A not sexualised manner, where people are still covered appropriately will not be seen to breach Section 2.4 of the Code. -- -- • • • television advertisement which A showed a young man walking in on his father painting a portrait of his naked mother, who is covered by a cloth (VISA International – 0160/15). -- dvertisements which featured people A in swimwear included: Barracuda Boat Trailers (0022/15), Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd (0112/15), Go Transit (0324/15), and Vitaco Health Australia Pty Ltd (0419/15, 0441/15 and 0442/15). Review of Operations 2015 print advertisement placed in a fashion A magazine for adults, featured a naked woman promoting a perfume brand (Tom Ford Beauty – 0199/15). e same advertising in a medium which Th would be viewed by a broad audience is inappropriate for general audiences which would definitely include children. -- -- • large poster advertisement in a A department store which featured a naked woman promoting a perfume brand (Tom Ford Beauty – 0158/15). Explicit references to sexual acts are usually viewed negatively by the Board. Complaints were upheld against several advertisements for explicit sexual content in 2015. The Board’s view was: • ighly explicit or sexual content in public H places, which are likely to be viewed by broad audiences including children, will breach the Code. -- -- large advertisement on the side of a A business featured an image of a naked man lying on his back with a laptop in front of him and a naked woman straddling him (Glandore Hydro – 0288/15). newspaper advertisement for a sexual A health class for gay men which included terms such as ‘better head and orgasms’ and ‘A** Class – from maintaining a healthy rectum to douching, anal sex, safe sex and more’ (WA AIDS Council – 0300/15). n outdoor poster which included a A cartoon image of two men playing with each other’s penises (Emily Ulman – 0465/15). The Board also dismissed a number of complaints about advertisements in this area. The Board’s view was: dvertising which featured couples kissing A or embracing, as long as no private parts were visible, and were appropriate for the intended audiences, would not be seen as explicit sexual content. -- Suggestive phrases and acts television advertisement featuring a A couple going about their day to day lives naked (Freedom Insurance Pty Ltd – 0323/15 and 0354/15). e Board has also consistently dismissed Th complaints about women and men in swimwear, where poses are not sexualised, especially in conjunction with beach, pool or fitness activities. size of his penis, the woman engaging in sexual activity with another man, and references to ‘anal’ and ‘semen’ (Universal Pictures – 0305/15). dvertising which featured a naked woman, A with her nipples and pubic area covered and her bottom exposed, was not inappropriate for a medium which would mostly be seen by adults. -- dvertising which shows only mild nudity, A which is not sexualised, in the context of a modern, stylised advertisement does not constitute inappropriate sexualised imagery. -- • The location of an advertisement can also affect whether the level of nudity in an advertisement is inappropriate. The Board’s view was: • dvertising which features people being A licked by dogs or other animals is not considered sexualised content. -- • dvertisements which featured couples A kissing or embracing, included: Calvin Klein Perfume (0012/15 and 0355/15), Red Bull (0272/15), Fantastic Snacks Australia (0253/15), Marshall Batteries (0318/15) and Unilever Australasia (0026/15). television advertisement which featured A a woman being licked on the mouth by a dog (AAMI – 0348/15). ildly suggestive acts or themes in M advertising which take into account the sensitivity of relevant audiences will not breach Section 2.4 -- television advertisement which features A a well-known singer briefly being shown in her underwear (Chemist Warehouse – 0481/15). CONSUMER COD alluded to body hair styling and removal SOCIAL MED INDEPENDEN (Edgewell – 0401/15 and 0416/15; and Shaver Shop Pty Ltd – 0381/15).TRANSPORT BRIDGIN STANDARDS PEOPL -- A television advertisement for sanitary INDUSTRY TRAININ items which focused on female bottoms ACCOUNTABILI GOVERNMENT -- A promotion for a movie on on-demand ( Johnson & Johnson Pacific Pty Ltd –INTEGRITY CINEM LIAISING television featured scenes from the movie 0351/15). COOPERATING BILLBOARDS ASSOCIATIN including a naked man standing in front CONSUMERS ADAPTABLE EDUCATORS SOCIAL MED of a woman while she comments on the UNITING REPORTS CONSUMERS COMMUNICATIN DETERMINATION TRANSPORT EDUCATORS COD ACCOUNTABILITY RESEARCH INTERNET RELIAB SELF-REGULATE RESPONSIVE MEMBERS TELEVISIO 39 ADVERTISERS POSTERS COMMUNITY DETERMINATION OUTDOO MERGING BILLBOARDS TRANSPARENCY RADIO COMPLAINT PARTNERIN -- Advertisements which humorously

Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2015 | Page 41