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.
Marketers may use stereotypes in advertising but should be careful not to cause serious or widespread offence. Mostly, the complaints received by the ASA relate to age, race, sexual (either gender or orientation) and occupational stereotypes. Generally speaking, the ASA regards the use of light-hearted stereotypes as acceptable but marketers should be careful that they are not seen as offensive, demeaning or the subject of ridicule. That judgment is obviously subjective and the ASA and CAP will judge each ad on its merit. For example, the ASA has rejected complaints that posters that supposedly implied old ladies were incontinent (The Automobile Association, 13 August 2003) and smelt like toilets (Xfm, 20 February 2002) because the posters were likely to be seen as humorous or had been misunderstood by the complainant. Similarly, a Mazda ad that suggested an elderly woman had given a car driver unreliable directions was considered neither sexist nor ageist (Mazda Motors (UK) Ltd, 30 August 2006). Although the Xfm, AA and Mazda adjudications might seem to suggest that the ASA is fairly relaxed about ads that mock old people and their capabilities, marketers should not overstep the line.
A campaign that has traditionally used racial stereotypes is one for Spitfire Ale (Shepherd Neame Ltd, 14 March 2001, 1 March 2006 and 6 September 2006). Mainly, the campaign plays on the Battle (or “Bottle”) of Britain and has been considered to be light-hearted and unlikely to offend. But the advertiser got it wrong when an ad, headlined "One pistol shot and 46,000 people start running. Yes, it's the Italian army", was judged to have offended by implying that Italians were generally cowardly (Shepherd Neame Ltd, 19 July 2006). And ads that encourage or condone violence towards other races (or individuals from other races) are almost certainly going to breach the Code (Sega Europe Ltd, December 2000, and Jersey European Airways (UK) Ltd, 22 September 2004 ).
In 2004, Channel 4 released an ad, for its programme “No Angels”, that featured four main characters of the show in nurse’s outfits and the headline “Get it on the NHS” (Channel 4 Television Corporation, 10 March 2004). Also in 2004, an ad, for an advertising awards ceremony, that featured a shirt with various stains on it generated a complaint (Creative Circle, 26 May 2004). Each stain was labelled with its cause and a lipstick stain at the bottom of the shirt was labelled “Zoe – Creative Secretary”, implying that Zoe had performed oral sex on the owner of the shirt. The ASA received complaints that both ads demeaned women and reinforced negative stereotypes that nurses and secretaries were sexually frivolous or sexually available. In 2007, the ASA received complaints about an ad that showed a barmaid with the claim “You’d employ her to pull a few pints …. And a few new customers …. But not to do you’re accounts!” (Licensed Trade Accountants, 2 May 2007). The ASA considered that the Channel 4 poster reflected the content of the programme and that the approach was light-hearted enough not to cause serious or widespread offence. But it decided that the Creative Circle and Licensed Trade Accountants ads were sexist, insulting and demeaning to women.
In 2005, a window-opening product ad featured a blonde woman next to a window and the headline “Makes opening sash windows a breeze for the elderly, the disabled and the blonde” generated complaints (Mighton Products, 12 January 2005). The ad had appeared in a building industry magazine and the ASA decided the ad would not offend readers of Architect, Builder, Contractor & Developer Magazine. If it had appeared in an untargeted medium, the ad would have been more likely to breach the Code and, as a general rule, the more targeted the medium, the less likely is the ad to cause offence. Marketers should consider both the creative execution and the media plan of their ads to avoid problems with the ASA.
The ASA has received, but not upheld, complaints that the use of black people in ads that feature guns stereotypes blacks as criminals (BMG UK & Ireland Ltd, 7 July 2004). Sometimes complaints have been dismissed because an ad accused of using racial or sexual stereotypes was merely one in a campaign and, in context, was unlikely to offend (Metropolitan Police, 28 March 2001). But sometimes, even the context of a wider campaign is not enough to render some executions acceptable. In 2007, a cinema and TV ad for Trident chewing gum showed a black man speaking in rhyme with a strong Caribbean accent. It provoked complaints that the ad was offensive and racist because it promoted the stereotype of black Caribbean people having accents and mannerisms. The ASA noted that advertisers using humour based on accents should use greater sensitivity and that the stereotype depicted in the ad had deeply offended a significant minority of viewers; it concluded that the ad had breached the Code (Cadbury Trebor Bassett Services Ltd t/a Cadburys, 28 March 2007).
Marketers should take care not to use offensive sexual orientation stereotypes. The use of the word “fruit” to describe an apparent cross-dresser was considered offensive (juicecompany (Europe) Ltd, 19 November 2003) but the depiction of an effeminate man with the claim “It’s just the thing for us sensitive types” and the use of gay icons Village People were considered harmless (Tesco Stores Ltd, 17 March 2004).
See relevant entries in ‘Taste and Decency’.
Last modified : 01 July 2010