Take two ads. Both feature scantily clad actors, their bodies wet with an edible substance. Slow-motion camera shots highlight their physiques as they shoot sultry stares.
Both are TV ads from different brands which have run in the UK and Australia. But one was banned in both markets after multiple complaints of sexism and discrimination, while the other was complained about for the above reasons by just one person overall, in Australia.
So why is this? The first, for online domain brand Crazy Domains, showed a man in a work meeting fantasising about his female boss, played by Baywatch actress Pamela Anderson, and another female colleague. The pair wore gold bikinis, danced and touched one another in his daydream, while being splashed with a milk-like liquid.
The latter was for Diet Coke. It showed a group of women ogling a nearby male gardener. After sustained eye contact, he opened a can of the soft drink which wet his face and t-shirt. He then ripped off his top, generating jaw-dropping stares from the mesmerised women.
So why does such an ad with women in it gather more complaints than one with a man? For Bram Williams, partner at Archibald Williams, it was simple. “While intellectually it shouldn’t matter which gender [is objectified], the truth is women have been depicted in this way far more frequently and for far longer. And far more people have had enough of it,” he said.
While Williams argued both ads could be viewed as discriminatory towards their respective genders, the uproar against Crazy Domains was partly due to its execution. “[It] played closer to pornography than advertising should.”
But the reaction to such an ad also depends on its intent, message and relevance to the product, according to TMS senior business manager Grace Pulvirenti. “The only point of the Crazy Domains ad was to court controversy and get banned. It has no relevance to the product […] and suggested that women have nothing of importance to contribute in business,” she said.
Coversely, Pulvirenti argued that the Diet Coke ads were light-hearted and humorous. The drink giant was of the same mind. It said in a statement: "We’re celebrating 30 Years of Diet Coke and the fun that women have
when they get together, which is why we’ve brought this ad to Australian
audiences.
"The act of rolling the can towards the ‘gardener’ in this
film is an innocent interaction
with a sense of playfulness and good old-fashioned flirting. We’re
portraying a tongue-in-cheek moment with the confident, spirited and
fun-loving women, who have helped make Diet Coke an icon over the past
three decades."
So would Pulvirenti place these ads? If they were approved by Commercial Advice, yes. “We would ensure that programming was appropriate to this content and buy post-20:30 timeslots only.”
This article first appeared in the 14 June 2013 edition of AdNews, in print and on iPad. Click here to subscribe for more news, features and opinion.
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.
Have something to say? Send us your comments using the form below or contact the writer at amykellow@yaffa.com.au
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.