M&Ms, Bonds, Ultra Tune, Wicked Campers and realestate.com.au have all been called into question in the latest rulings from the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB).
Newsletter images from Bond’s have been questioned over the sexualisation of children.
This email advertisement features nine images of women and children wearing different Bonds' products including yoga pants, crop tops, romper suits, a dress and a jacket. The text above the images reads, "Double Tappiness. Insta-worthy styles to steal via Social".
A sample of complaints said the images were “unduly sexualised”, with one person writing they were disturbed by the ads.
Bond’s responded by saying the images included in the newsletter were collected from a range of bloggers and influencers and are intended to be “light-hearted”- not sexualise children in anyway.
The ASB ruled in Bond’s favour, saying the current advertisement shows the children in an "age-appropriate" way.
Ultra Tune’s ‘dim-witted’ women
Auto car service brand Ultra Tune is a repeat offender on the ASB, with many complaints against its representation of women being made each month.
The ad criticised this time shows women going through a car wash with the roof down and being spurted with water. When the women go to put their windows up the car’s battery warning light begins to flash. A male voice over says, "Avoid unexpected situations. Get your battery checked at Ultra Tune", and the car exits the car wash filled with bubbles.
A complainant write; “Ultra Tune consistently produces advertisements that invariably depict attractive young women as vacuous, stupid, and dim-witted.
“Presumably they believe these advertisements to be comical, but they are inherently sexist and demeaning to women, portraying either all women as unintelligent, or some kinds of women (big breasted, young) as docile, incapable, unintelligent and thoughtless,” the complainant added.
Once again, while the ASB noted the negative depiction of women, it ruled in favour of Ultra Tune, saying the ad did not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is degrading to women.
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
No stranger to controversy, Wicked Campers' vans has come under fire again for sexual content featured on one of its vans.
The advertisement features an image of an egg holding on to the back of a chicken as though they are engaging in a sexual act. The accompanying text reads, “Who came first?”
A sample of the complaints includes the following: “My children started reading it and were asking what it meant. I felt offended by seeing that image in front of my children and I was personally offended as well. It really stood out and was in my face.”
The ASB took issue to the design, ruling to uphold the complaint and for the van to be modified or discontinued.
The board says while children may not understand the meaning behind the van, it would lead to questions and the imagery did not treat the issue of sex with sensitivity.
This is not the first time (and probably not the last time) Wicked Campers has been called out by the ASB. In the past, it refuses to comply with ASB rulings and does not respond to the advertising watchdog.
Violence against men, ASB says yes
A Mars Confectionary TV ad for M&Ms opens on a woman asking her partner to get her a snack and when the man opens the kitchen cupboard, various items fly out and hit his head.
A complainant to the ASB said showing a man being repeatedly hit in the head to sell chocolates is unjustifiable violence.
“The ad would be highly unlikely to appeal to men, and the ad is more than likely targeted at women who would like to see a man being hit in the head by thrown objects,” the complainant writes.
The ASB dismissed the complaints, stating “most reasonable members of the community would recognise the whole premise of the advertisement is clearly fantastical”.
realestate.com.au not racist
Complaints against realestate.com.au, for the racist representation of Asian people, has been dismissed by the ASB.
The advertisement shows a successful Caucasian couple and a “failure” couple featuring an Asian man.
The complainant said the ad represents Asian things negatively and as a laughing stock, therefore unacceptable on the grounds of racism.
The board said the ad was not racist.
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.