Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The ASA receives many complaints about the use of sex and sexual imagery in advertising. Those uses include implicit or explicit references to sexual intercourse, overtly sexualised images, gratuitous innuendo and sexual stereotyping.
Many complaints are about the depiction of women and the likely acceptability of an ad will depend on several factors including: the product advertised, the way in which the woman is depicted, the choice of medium, the target audience, the tone of the ad and the impression created. In the last few years, the ASA seems to have taken a comparatively relaxed view about marcoms featuring nude or semi-nude women in targeted mediums, especially if those women are not depicted in a negative or derogatory way and the imagery is relative to the product advertised.
However recent research conducted as part of its regular engagement programme in Cardiff suggested that the ASA had been too permissive and recommended that it take a less liberal view of nudity and sexual imagery. In June 2011, the Department for Education published a report on the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood, following a review by Reg Bailey, Chief Exec of the Mother’s Union. Consequently, the ASA has reviewed its assessment of sexual imagery in outdoor advertising and will be applying a stricter approach, specifically with the aim of protecting children from inappropriate or harmful material.
The ASA has issued guidance reflecting the way in which it will now assess sexual imagery in outdoor advertising in light of the findings of the Bailey review. This guidance contains examples of what is, and is not, likely to be considered overtly sexual as well as examples of images that are considered sexually suggestive and would therefore warrant a placement restriction, meaning the advertisement would not be displayed within 100 metres of a school. You can access the ASA’s statement on sexual imagery in outdoor advertising or alternatively contact the CAP Copy Advice team for guidance.
Marketers should remember that unjustified, explicit or sexually suggestive nudity can be perceived as sexist and can cause serious or widespread offence, especially in untargeted media or if combined with innuendo. For example an advertisement for Lynx shower gel combined an image of a woman holding an undone bikini top to her chest with the claims “The cleaner you are, the dirtier you get” and “Get dirty this summer”. The ASA considered this implied that using the product would lead to uninhibited sexual behaviour and that the combination of the text and the image were likely to cause offence to many members of the public, particularly those accompanied by children. (Unilever UK Ltd, 23 November 2011). Television advertisements in the same campaign and featuring the same strapline were found not to breach the Code because they were subject to timing restrictions meaning they targeted a more appropriate audience.
The ASA also upheld complaints about another Lynx ad that featured a female model in various sexually suggestive poses, in conjunction with text such as “What will she do to make you lose control”, because they were inappropriately located on internet sites that could be seen by children. Within its adjudication the ASA drew a clear distinction between Yahoo and Hotmail, whose users were largely over the age of 16, and Rotten Tomatoes and Anorak who could not provide evidence showing what proportion of their users were over 16 or any other evidence of targeting, for example an age verification gateway. Because of this, although the ads were the same, they were only considered to have been inappropriately targeted when placed on Rotten Tomatoes and Anorak because they had the potential to be seen by children and were therefore deemed irresponsible. (Unilever UK Ltd, 23 November 2011).
One way to minimize the risk of nudity offending is if it is relevant to the advertised product: if it is, the ASA might be less likely to uphold complaints; toiletries and lingerie are good examples of products for which nudity is likely to be acceptable. In 2012, the ASA received complaints about a lingerie poster. Complainants felt it was not suitable for display where it might be seen by children but the ASA noted the image used was relevant to the product being advertised and deemed that the ad was not overtly sexual. In making its decision, the ASA noted the advertiser had ensured that the poster would not appear within 100 meters of a school, thereby reducing the number of children likely to see it. (J D Williams & Company Ltd, 14 March 2012). Marketers should not however take this to mean all risqué ads for these types of products will be acceptable. One marketer found that images of a woman in underwear, even when relevant to the product, provoked complaints. The ASA considered that the image was sexually provocative because the model had spread legs, an arched back and was touching her thigh. The ASA upheld the complaints ruling that the images were unsuitable for untargeted outdoor display. (Marks and Spencer plc, 30 November 2011).
Marketers should take care not to depict women or men in demeaning, subservient, exploitative, degrading or humiliating ways because such approaches are likely to cause serious or widespread offence. For example, the ASA upheld complaints about an ad for insurance that used an image of three men wearing revealing underwear with the strapline ‘Can’t see the wood for the trees’ which was considered an obvious reference to male genitalia. The image was unrelated to the advertised product and in conjunction with the strapline was considered to have the potential to cause serious offence to some people. (Versatile Insurance Professionals, Aaduki, 22 February 2012).
Similarly an ad featuring a woman in bed topless with a sheet covering her breasts and part of her stomach in conjunction with the text “You know you’re not the first ... but who cares?” when used to promote second hand cars was also considered offensive as a result of its sexual innuendo and its apparent objectification of women. The ASA also considered the fact that the image was unrelated to the product advertised (Really good domains Ltd. 14th September 2011).
Innuendo that is intended to be light-hearted can be acceptable but degrading language or demeaning visuals can offend. An image of a naked woman in chains with an ‘Access Denied’ sign across her bottom was considered to imply that women were sex objects and was therefore considered demeaning and degrading (Retell Ltd, 7 April 2010). Innuendo that is vulgar, especially in untargeted media, is likely to generate complaints. The ASA received complaints regarding a promotion for work-related clothing that featured an image of a man reclining in a van with two women. One was in her underwear the other in a short white dress. The ad also featured the text ‘It’s gonna get dirty’. As the ad was intended to promote a competition to win ‘The ultimate lad’s bash’ the ASA considered that the image of a woman in her underwear in conjunction with the text clearly implied that the woman had played a sexual role in the lad’s night out. The portrayal of the women within such a strong sexual context was considered demeaning and offensive and therefore the ad was unsuitable for public display. (BSS Group Ltd, 22 February 2012)
Marketers should be extremely careful when using images that could be considered to feature sexual violence. An ad in a magazine that showed a model dressed as a geisha in a submissive pose, visibly upset and with her kimono pushed up to her thighs, was considered to imply that sexual violence either had or was about to take place and was therefore considered likely to cause serious offence to some readers. (Bisazza SpA, 30 September 2009) See also ‘Sexual Violence’.
Overtly sexual themes or sexually explicit visuals can offend, especially if the choice of medium means that the marcom is seen by people outside the target market. A good example is a Gucci ad that appeared in women's style-press and showed a man kneeling at the feet of a woman who had lowered her underwear to reveal pubic hair in the shape of 'G'. The ASA considered that the ad was unlikely to offend because it had been carefully targeted and was so stylised it was not sexually explicit; the decision might have been different if the choice of media was not so selective (Gucci, 26 February 2003). Similarly, an ad in Ride magazine showed a woman’s bottom in a pink thong. Although the complainant thought the ad was sexist, the ASA considered the ad was unlikely to offend readers (DK Motorcycle Group, 19 December 2008). But, a poster that featured a woman’s torso with her breasts covered by flowers was considered to breach the Code. In conjunction with the strapline ‘Other’s measure - we fit’. The image, even though it was not considered explicit, was considered unacceptable when displayed where it could be seen by children. (1st Choice Glazing, 1 February 2012).
Depictions or allusions to sexual intercourse, masturbation or oral sex can offend, especially if irrelevant to the product, too explicit or poorly targeted. A circular for a club in Newcastle, delivered as a door drop, in October 2011, featured an image of a woman crouching in front of a man with her buttocks on display from beneath her dress. Foam spurted from the man's crotch. Text stated "every Wednesday TEQUILA come and swallow". A complainant asserted that the circular was offensive and unsuitable for an untargeted medium, where it could be seen by children, the ASA agreed. (Stage One Events Inc, 4 January 2012) Similarly, a poster, for a lap dancing club, that showed a woman kneeling over a frothing bottle of champagne was upheld because of the obvious allusion to sex (Grace of Brighton, 6 February 2008). But humour seems to sometimes get marketers off the hook. In 2007, the ASA did not uphold a complaint about a poster that advertised the opening of a new lingerie store and was headlined “Making Devon Cream” (Ann Summers Ltd, 29 August 2007).
Sexual stereotyping, whether men or women, can cause offence (The Creative Circle, 26 May 2004, and Lormar Ltd, 7 July 2004). A Mazda ad suggesting that an elderly woman had given unreliable directions was not considered to be sexist (Mazda Motors (UK) Ltd, 30 August 2006). See ‘Taste and Decency: Stereotypes’.
Finally, references to homosexuals need to be handled with care. Although society is more relaxed about the depiction of gay sex, ads that have used, for example, gratuitous lesbian overtones to titillate and attract attention have breached the Code (Checkit UK Ltd, 17 October 2007). Of course, marketers are not prohibited from using homosexual imagery, especially if it is relevant. And ASA rulings seem to indicate that playful portrayals of gays are acceptable but derogatory terms such as ”fruit” are not.
Because it is often difficult to judge whether ads are likely to offend, and because that can sometimes change quite quickly, especially in the wake of the Bailey Review, the Copy Advice team is always happy to give advice on potentially offensive ads.
See other ‘Taste and Decency’ entries and 'Sexual Violence'.
Last modified : 10 May 2012