I hate most ads on tv. So I tend to watch programes on catch up, that way I can skip thru the ads. David Totally agree. I think they are awful and turn me right off giving. A huge amount of the aid in stolen in destination country anyway. Solve those problems before tugging the heart strings so hard. Stop the political thieving too. Don't know how it hasn't been banned yet. I find it vaguely sinister and disturbing in the choice of theme.
Or is that just me? Surely that contravenes human rights, or something? Also not keen on the Wonga adverts on TV - very cuddly looking characters for a not-so-cuddly product. It's not just you. Adverts are deliberately annoying these days, Michael winner pioneered this type of advert. People are still discussing the same adverts years later on Internet forums.
It's a like a wet dream for the marketing people, it could not get any better, no wonder they get paid so much. They don't really annoy me though anymore, because its too deliberate and over-done these days. The adverts that annoy me are the ones that target children in such a cynical and shameless way. Adults should be smart enough to know such things like the made up science on some adverts is nonsense, but children are not fair game and in my option ALL advertising aimed and children should be banned, including thosentoy adverts in the morning, period.
It's essentially lying. As for the charity adverts mentioned above, well I have witnessesed first hand some the suffering they are asking for help with. I can tell you that it's not made up or exaggerated, in fact they massively tone it down for the daytime TV adverts. Sure there is corruption and waste, but many of the charities do and amazing job all things considered - far better than our government makes out like they do. When you test drive one though you don't get the adrenaline rush that you would expect after being brainwashed by the TV ads.
There's the NoNo, the X5, now we have Spacebags and god knows how many other products all advertised by Yanks - why?? I don't mind cats at all but the sight of vast herds of them seems weird to me. Creepy unfunny puppets preying on the vulnerable. A spokesperson for ScS said: 'Victoria has become a great representative of our brand.
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline. Argos AO. Privacy Policy Feedback. Is this the most annoying woman in Britain? Actress who has spent five years promoting cut-price sofas as the face of ScS receives constant stream of abuse from viewers who want her to 'burn in hell' Victoria Thomas, from Cheshire, is the face of the sofa and carpet retailer But her TV appearances prompts a wave of criticism from TV viewers One admitted to harbouring an 'unexplained and irrational dislike' for her Actress has also had turns in Emmerdale, Doctors and Life on Mars By Unity Blott For Mailonline Published: GMT, 10 January Updated: GMT, 12 January e-mail 1.
Share this article Share. Try having to put up with her while she's filming in your branch. Comments Share what you think. View all. Bing Site Web Enter search term: Search. How one supermarket is keeping pace with surge in demand for plant-based food Ad Feature Advertisement. The momager, 66, calls him 'special' as Khloe says he has good 'energy' and Kim refers to him as a 'step-dad' Emily Ratajkowski shares cute snaps of her 'big boy' Sylvester Bindi Irwin shares an adorable picture of daughter Grace Warrior, seven months, eating mango with her pet dog Stella the pug Lucifer star Lesley-Ann Brandt had an abortion because she 'wasn't ready' to be a parent and 'that's good enough' Love you bro' Videos show Travis Scott stopping his Astroworld performance to call for help after fan 'passes out' in the crowd Anne Robinson makes low-key exit from Countdown studios after Rachel Riley said of co-star 'no one would describe her as cuddly' in wake of feud Anthea Turner, 61, wows in throwback bikini snaps in Cyprus as star prepares for operation on her fibroids Gossip Girl part two trailer teases the aftermath of Julien and Obie's hook-up Chris Evans steps out for coffee after being overlooked for Sexiest Man of the Year Howard Stern vows to run for president if Donald Trump makes White House bid and says his popularity among listeners means he'd win contest against his former friend Rust electrician who held dying Halyna Hutchins in his arms reveals 'scene did not call for Alec Baldwin to shoot the revolver' as he sues for 'emotional distress' Billie Eilish dances seductively and shows some skin in dreamy new ad for her eponymous perfume Footballer lends his voice to Aldi's Scrooge-themed Christmas ad 'I don't believe in good guys and bad guys': Emily Ratajkowski doesn't want to 'cancel' Robin Thicke and is sure he has 'lots of wonderful things about him' Terrence J 'had his car shot at as he escaped attempted follow-home robbery in Sherman Oaks' Katey Sagal limps around on crutches as she emerges for first time since she was hit by a car while crossing street Nicole Kidman reenacts famous grape smashing scene from I Love Lucy as she embodies Lucille Ball in new trailer for Amazon's Being The Ricardos MAFS UK's Megan Wolfe reveals she received five-page emails explaining why she 'deserved to be dead' after 'cheating' on husband Bob 'We'll still be going!
German Chancellor is awkwardly left hanging by Denmark's Queen Margrethe II Astroworld security guidelines for staff had NO plans for a crowd surge and told them to refer to casualties as 'Smurfs' and NOT 'dead' or 'deceased' Pregnant Danielle Lloyd shows off her bump in a cosy beige jumper as she heads to the hairdressers while awaiting the arrival of her daughter Ariel Winter cuddles up to boyfriend of one year Luke Benward at King Richard screening Hate condoms.
Love SKYN. Further text stated This changes everything. SKYN condoms are made from a revolutionary new material Polyisoprene, to revolutionise your sex life. Another poster was headlined Roll on better sex. CAP Code Edition 12 1. Ansell Ltd stated that there was a higher possibility of public complaints being received because of the product being advertised and stated that there would always be people who would be offended by any mention of condoms and contraception.
They believed, however, that this was significantly outweighed by the benefit to society in reducing teenage and unwanted pregnancy and in reducing sexually transmitted diseases. They believed it was important that such products were allowed to be mass-marketed to reach the maximum number of possible consumers and also that the product would encourage the use of condoms.
They additionally stated that there would inevitably be people, including parents of young children or those with certain religious beliefs, who would not want to see any advertising for sexual wellness products.
They believed, however, that it was important that people had the opportunity to be informed about sexual wellness products. They also stated that they did not believe the ads were overtly sexual, degrading to women or likely to encourage promiscuity.
They stated that neither ad was placed within the m of a school and that the ads were not placed near churches. The ASA noted both ads included the prominent use of the word sex alongside an image of the head and shoulders of a woman who appeared to be wearing only underwear.
We acknowledged that the use of the word sex , the reference to condoms and the images of the women referred to sexual activity, but considered that the images were not sexually explicit and the overall tone of the ads was not provocative. We acknowledged that some consumers would find the posters distasteful because of the overt references to sex and sexual activity. However, we considered that, in the context of ads for condoms, the images and text in the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point we investigated ads a and b under CAP Code rule 4. We noted both ads included the prominent use of the word sex alongside an image of the head and shoulders of a woman who appeared to be wearing only underwear. We also noted the use of the word sex , the reference to condoms and the images of the women referred to sexual activity.
We considered that it was acceptable to use a reference to sex to promote condoms on a poster provided that it was not done in a way that was sexually provocative, but nevertheless considered that the direct reference to sexual activity meant that the posters were unsuitable to be placed in those locations where they were most likely to be seen by children. We noted Ansell had imposed a placement restriction on the ads meaning that they would not be positioned within m of any school.
We therefore considered that the ads were responsibly placed. On this point we investigated ads a and b under CAP Code rule 1.
A poster ad, for an adult entertainment venue, included a large image of a woman's torso. The woman was in a reclined position and her torso and the lower part of her breasts were exposed; she wore a top that covered the upper part of her breasts. The complainants challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, particularly in an untargeted medium, because they believed it was degrading and objectified women.
Some of the complainants also challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, particularly in an untargeted medium, because they believed it was overtly sexual. Some of the complainants also challenged whether the ad was unsuitable to appear where it could be seen by children, in particular because it appeared in the proximity of a primary school.
Fillies Clubs Ltd FC said they had used the same logo for around three years and had not received any complaints during that time. They said the silhouette was clearly of a woman wearing a cat suit and heels and that it had been changed from its draft format so it no longer showed the outline of a nipple, thereby removing any suggestion that the nipple was exposed. They said the model used for the main image in the ad was gender neutral so it was decided not to include the face.
They said the image could be male or female or, as in the current case, neither. FC said the ad did not include any derogatory images or text in relation to either gender and there was no innuendo.
They said offence was a subjective matter. However, they disagreed that the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. FC said the ad only appeared in one location, which was within the boundaries of a pub car park. They said the poster was not in close proximity to a school or residential area. The ASA noted the ad was for an adult entertainment venue and, as such, the image was relevant to the nature of the club being advertised.
We noted the model's head was not included in the image and considered consumers would understand from the ad that they were being invited to view the faceless model's naked torso and, in particular, the breasts.
We considered the ad presented the model as a sexual object and considered that, particularly in conjunction with the references to FILLIES it was likely to be seen as objectifying women and demeaning them. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, particularly in an untargeted medium.
We noted the model's naked torso occupied almost the entirety of the ad and that the only visible clothing was a top that merely covered the upper part of the breasts, which were very prominent. We considered the model's pose and dress were sexually provocative and had the effect of making the model appear sexually available.
We also noted the ad included a logo that showed the silhouette of a woman, also in a reclined position. Although we acknowledged the imagery in the ad was relevant to the nature of the venue being advertised, we considered it, in particular the main image of the model, was overtly sexual and was therefore likely to cause serious or widespread offence in an untargeted medium.
We understood the ad was placed outside a station and approximately 0. Nevertheless, we noted it could be seen by children, given that it appeared in an untargeted medium. We considered the ad was overtly sexual and therefore unsuitable to appear where it could be seen by children.
We concluded that the ad breached the Code and that it was irresponsible for such an overtly sexual image to appear in an untargeted medium. On points 2 and 3, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1. The ad should not appear again in its current form. We told FC to ensure future marketing communications were prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society and that, particularly in an untargeted medium, they did not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
TV viewers have got their knickers in a twist over the sight of cartoon women dancing in bikinis and a large woman flashing her underwear in an advert. The second TV ad for insurance company confused. Cartoon characters with large breasts in skimpy bikinis are shown jumping up and down in slow motion to the Village People's YMCA song - while another woman's short dress rides up to expose her pink knickers.
A spokesman for the authority said the organisation had received a number of complaints on a range of issues including that the ads were misleading in the representation of the value of nectar points. Other complaints were logged because the advert was overly sexual and inappropriate for children to see, and that it is offensive in stereotyping on religious and race grounds.
The spokesman said: We have decided, following an ASA Council decision, that there were no grounds to take any action on these issues. The Mothers' Union today slammed the advert for increasing the creeping sexualisation of television. A spokesprat said:. This advert increases our major concern about the drip-drip affect of sexualisation of everyone on television. It is having an impact on everyone - including children - and we need to protect them from this wallpapering of sexualisation.
It is high time something is done about this. We need to become aware of what is going on before the drip-drip becomes a torrent. Aberdeen City Council and a member of the public challenged whether the leaflet was:. The Pearl Lounge said they did not support the message communicated in the leaflet. They also said it was not the promoter's intention to cause harm or offence but to create a tongue in cheek promotion aimed at students. They said the event was cancelled and all promotional material had been withdrawn.
They also said they had since worked closely with Aberdeen City Council and student bodies to ensure similar risky promotions did not run again and that all future material for external events was proof read by the venue. The ASA welcomed the advertiser's assurance that similar promotional material would not be distributed in future. We considered that, because this was a potentially unsafe practice, the ad was socially irresponsible.
We therefore concluded that it breached the Code. On this point the ad breached CAP Code rules 1. An alcohol sales promotion on www. Wouldn't parties be better if you could magically summon supplies? If you fancy a spell of fun with the lads or the ladies, After Shottz will wave their wands and deliver all you need for a supernaturally good time. After Shottz supplied parties are the stuff of legend so grab today's deal and conjure up all the ingredients for a perfect boys' or girls' night in - no need to say 'abracadabra'.
A complainant challenged whether the ad was socially irresponsible, because it encouraged excessive drinking. The ASA noted that the promotion offered the ingredients for a perfect boys' or girls' night in and stated Wouldn't parties be better if you could magically summon supplies? We noted that the boys' package offered beer and the girls' package offered white wine, and considered that the references to boys' night in or girls' night in were primarily intended to describe the type of alcohol available in the respective packages.
We noted that there was a limit of one voucher per group and considered that the offer targeted people throwing parties in their homes, rather than at individual drinkers and that the ad focused on how supplies for a house party could be conveniently delivered to the party location. We considered that the language used in the ad was generally measured and did not refer to, or overtly encourage, excessive drinking. Because we considered that the promotion was targeting parties, where the pack would be divided between and consumed by a group of people, and because we considered that the language used in the ad was measured, we concluded the ad did not encourage excessive drinking, and was not socially irresponsible.
The TV ad showed a woman dancing in her underwear. The model looked down at her chest and at the camera. The first image showed the model in an arced pose with her hands resting behind her head. The model had a playful expression on her face. The second image showed the model with her hands beside her head.
Her eyes were shown to be looking towards the advertised product. The third image showed the model in an arced pose. Her eyes were looking directly out from the image and she had a sultry expression on her face. They said they had chosen to show the bra on the model to demonstrate the uplifting effect of the bra. They said it was their intention to show the function of the garment in a playful way, but did not intend for the ad to be deemed indecent or offensive.
Clearcast said they did not believe the ad required a timing restriction because the model was not acting in a provocative manner. They said the model was modelling underwear which demonstrated the enhanced cleavage that the bra could achieve.
They said the model was shown enjoying herself to uplifting music. In that context, they believed the tone of the ad was fun and playful. The ASA noted the ad was for a push-up bra and the model was shown to caress her body, wink and blow a kiss to the viewer.
In one scene the model was shown to look towards the advertised product before holding a sustained look directly towards the viewer. The ad did not, however, include any explicit nudity and whilst we understood the ad might be viewed by some as sexually suggestive in nature, in the context of an ad for a bra, we considered it was not overtly sexual.
Whilst we recognised that some people might find the ad distasteful, we considered the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. We acknowledged the complainant's concern that the ad was unsuitable for broadcast when children might be watching.
However, as stated in point 1 , we noted the ad did not include any explicit nudity and whilst we understood the ad might be viewed by some as sexually suggestive in nature, in the context of an ad for a bra, we considered it was not overtly sexual. We therefore considered the ad did not include anything that was likely to cause harm or distress to children or was otherwise unsuitable for them.
On that basis, we concluded that the ad was suitable for broadcast without a timing restriction. We noted there was no explicit nudity in the ad, and that the ad was for a push-up bra.
We considered the nature of the product meant that viewers of the ad were less likely to regard the ad as gratuitous or offensive. We noted the first image showed the model with her hands resting behind her head and with a playful expression on her face. We also noted the second image showed the model with her hands beside her head and her gaze towards the advertised product.
We again considered the model's facial expression to be playful. We noted the third image showed the model in an arced pose which accentuated her hip. We considered the pouted lips and the fact that the model was looking directly at the viewer gave the model a sultry expression.
Whilst we understood the ads might be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature and therefore distasteful, we concluded that the images in the ad were playful and were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. On this point, we investigated ad b under CAP Code rule 4. We considered the ad might be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature.
However, we considered that the images were not overtly sexual in nature. We therefore concluded that ad b was acceptable for use in outdoor media likely to be seen by children. On this point, we investigated ad b under CAP Code rules 1. A magazine ad for Triuk bicycle frames, seen in Cycling Plus , stated It all starts with great bodywork and featured an image of a bicycle frame and a naked woman. The woman held one arm up over behind her head, while the other covered her breasts.
A complainant, who believed that the image was sexist and degrading to women, challenged whether it was offensive. Triuk said, whilst they were concerned that someone had found their ad offensive, they believed that the ad was not degrading or sexist in any way. They said the ad was a piece of artwork with a friendly tongue-in-cheek caption and had intended to be eye-catching and show the aesthetic features of the bicycle frame.
They also said, because 45, issues of the magazine that contained the ad had been sent out and Cycling Plus had not received any complaints, and because the use of the female form in the cycling industry was commonplace, they believed that the ad was acceptable. Cycling Plus said their magazine was read predominantly by men in their 30s to 50s and did not believe that the ad was offensive.
The ASA noted the ad featured an image of a naked woman and that, although the image was not sexually explicit, it had sexual connotations. We also noted that it bore no relevance to the advertised product and that the text It all starts with great bodywork likened the aesthetic qualities of the woman to those of the product.
We therefore considered that, in this context, the image was likely to cause serious offence to some readers of Cycling Plus and concluded that it breached the Code. A radio ad, for Budweiser beer, heard in December , included a male character, who gave a motivational-style speech during which other male characters cheered. He stated Tonight is free of expectation. Tonight you cannot be disappointed, it's just another night. That's why tonight could be the greatest night of your life.
Because it's on nights like tonight that you end up at a party and you don't know a single person who's carrying you on their shoulders. It's on nights like tonight when you wanna bring your passport, just in case. Gentlemen, you were conceived on a night like tonight.
So tonight, before going out for that ice cold Budweiser, you put in that extra two minutes in front of the mirror. Because you never know who you're going to meet So raise your bottles of Budweiser high in the air and make a toast to tonight. Now get out there, great times are waiting. Say it with me now The characters all chanted Grab some Buds. A voice-over stated Please drink Budweiser responsibly.
InBev said Budweiser advertising in the UK drew upon the commonly attributed American values of optimism, free-spiritedness and a positive attitude. They said Budweiser believed that an optimistic outlook and can-do approach to life could bring about the sharing of great times with friends. The radio ad was part of that tradition and was designed to capture the spirit of anticipation. InBev said that, importantly, there were only two references to alcohol in the ad, which came towards the very end of the coach's speech.
The references to Budweiser were independent of the messages delivered in the coach's speech and neither reference was so strong as to directly link its consumption to sexual success or activity, nor did they imply that the consumption of alcohol was essential.
They strongly believed the ad complied with the Code. The RACC said the ad's message was about going out with a positive attitude rather than a message about going out and drinking or drinking being linked with sexual activity, sexual success, seduction or enhanced attractiveness.
The ad was one in a series that focused on having the night of your life , which was deliberately bigged up and described in a consciously exaggerated manner for dramatic effect.
They did not believe there was any link between alcohol and sexual success. The ASA noted the ad was intended to capture a positive attitude and enjoyment of time spent with friends. We considered, however, the tone of the ad was such that it was likely to be interpreted as reflecting a sense of anticipation ahead of an evening where alcohol would be drunk.
We noted the ad included the references So raise your bottles of Budweiser high in the air and make a toast to tonight We also noted the speech-giver encouraged the members of the group to make additional effort in getting ready for the evening, even though there was nothing remarkable about it, by putting We noted it was suggested that it was on such nights that unexpected and significant events, including conception, could take place. We considered the ad was likely to be understood as suggesting the group was preparing for an evening where alcohol would be drunk and during which the participants would have a great time, including the possibility of meeting a potential sexual partner.
We considered the ad linked alcohol to sexual success and therefore concluded that it breached the Code. It featured images of doors sold by the company as well as of a woman who was wearing denim hot pants, a cropped top and red boots. She was crouched and appeared to have her hand on her hip. They said it was not intended to be offensive but to be bright and eye-catching with discounts and low prices.
They said the image was a standard one bought from an agency; the woman was fully clothed and it was used to draw attention to the discounted items shown in the ad. The ASA noted the woman was wearing denim hot pants, a cropped top, and red boots. We also noted she was crouched and considered she appeared to have her hand on her hip.
We considered the overall effect of the image, including of the woman's facial expression, was only mildly sexual. Although we noted the image of the woman was not directly relevant to the products being advertised, we considered the ad did not demean women.
We also noted the ad did not, for example, include any innuendo and that it appeared in a targeted medium. We considered children were less likely to view the ad than if it had appeared in an untargeted medium and concluded that, because it was no more than mildly sexual, the ad was suitably targeted.
We also concluded that, although some might find it distasteful, the ad was not overtly sexual and was not demeaning to women. We therefore concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence in the medium in which it appeared. One image featured David Beckham wearing only a pair of trunk briefs. Three complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive. Two complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because it contained material that they said was unsuitable for children to see.
The ASA noted that there was no explicit nudity in the image, and that the ad was for an underwear range. We considered that the nature of the product meant viewers of the ad were less likely to regard the ad as gratuitous or offensive, and considered that the poses and facial expressions of David Beckham were mildly sexual at most.
While we acknowledged that some viewers might consider the images distasteful, we concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 4. Because the ad was for an underwear range, was not overtly sexual and did not feature explicit nudity, we considered the ad was not unsuitable for children to see, and concluded it was not socially irresponsible.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 1. A national press ad in the Daily Star, for an adult telephone chat line, seen in August featured a picture of a topless young woman.
Calls recorded. Mobile users may receive free promotional messages. A complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful, because they believed it sexualised young teenagers.
Livelines UK pointed out that the ad had been appearing in the Daily Star for the past year and no previous complaints had been made about it. However, they had decided to remove the ad from the Daily Star and other publications in response to the complaint. They did not believe the ad was irresponsible or harmful, or sexualised young teenagers.
They explained that all of their services were aimed towards adults aged 18 years or over, and they did not intend to imply that females providing the service were under the age of They said the word teenagers could refer to individuals aged 18 and They explained they had purchased the image used in the ad from an adult content provider, which had provided to Livelines copies of the model-release form and proof of ID.
They said the ID showed the model was over 18 when the photograph was taken. Livelines maintained that all of their phone operators were over the age of 18 and they had signed documentation to prove this.
They also said they were regulated by Phone Pay Plus and had to adhere to a strict code of practice, which required, amongst other things, that their service users must be over the age of We also considered that the references to teenager SEX and TINY NAUGHTY TEENS added to the impression that the females operating the service were under 18 and therefore considered that readers were likely to infer that they were being invited to engage in sexual conversations with teenagers, who could be young women under the age of 18 and could be as young as 13, although we understood from Livelines that this was not the case as all of their operators were over the age of We concluded that the ad was socially irresponsible and harmful.
Eight ads on American Apparel's website, viewed in October , and an ad in a free lifestyle magazine available from shops, distributed in October The first website ad showed a woman wearing lace knickers and an un-zipped hooded sweater.
She was arching her back towards the camera and her breasts were exposed. The second website ad showed two women lying face-down on a bed, shot from above. They were looking up towards the camera. They were wearing thigh-high socks and nothing else, revealing their bare buttocks.
The third website ad showed the same two women wearing only thigh-high socks. They were lying on their sides, looking towards the camera. Their buttocks, and one woman's breast, were visible. The magazine ad showed a woman lying on a bed. She was wearing a grey jumper and white knickers. Her legs were spread apart and her arms were raised above her head. The fourth website ad was the same image as the magazine ad. The fifth website ad showed two images of the same woman wearing the grey jumper and white knickers.
In the first image she was sitting on the bed with her legs spread apart and her hands resting on the bed between her legs. In the second image she was lying on the bed with her legs spread apart.
She was looking up towards the camera. The sixth website ad showed four images of the same woman wearing the grey jumper only. In all of the images she was standing, facing diagonally away, and looking over her shoulder towards the camera. Her buttocks were visible in all of the images. The bed was visible in the background. The seventh website ad showed two images of a woman wearing white trousers only. In the first image she was standing side-on to the camera.
She was arching her back and holding her arms over her breasts. In the second image she was standing diagonally face-on to the camera. She was arching her back with her arms raised to her head, exposing her breasts. The eighth website ad showed the same two images of the woman wearing white trousers, superimposed over an image of the American Apparel factory building. Grey lines were drawn onto the images of the woman as if they were pencil drawings. A complainant challenged whether the images were offensive, because they believed that they were pornographic, exploitative of women and inappropriately sexualised young women.
American Apparel AA said they did not believe that any of the images were pornographic, exploitative of women or inappropriately sexualised young women.
They said the images on their website featured real, non-airbrushed, everyday people, and that the vast majority of them were not professional models. They said that the sorts of images which appeared were the sorts of images people regularly shared with their friends on social networks and which normal people could relate to.
They said the approach was not graphic, explicit or pornographic but was designed to show a range of different images of people that were natural, not posed and real. They said that the women who featured in the images were clearly in their twenties, and emphasised that they were happy, relaxed and confident in expression and pose.
They said the women were not portrayed in a manner which was vulnerable, negative or exploitative. They said the partial nudity in some of the images was not explicit or graphic and the poses were intended to show off the products advertised. AA said that, although they did not have any demographic data with regard to visitors to their website, they imagined that the types of products featured in the images were purchased by young adults in the 18 to 35 age range, and in particular, people in their twenties.
They considered it was therefore likely that it would be young adult women who would be viewing the images, and argued that such adult women were highly unlikely to be offended by such images. They said that Crack Magazine, in which ad d was published, also had an adult audience and they did not think that its readers would be offended by the image. AA said they believed it was important to judge what was and was not offensive by reference to the current times and the views of the majority of decent and reasonable people, not a small and puritanically-minded minority.
They said the images in their advertising were less, and certainly no more, sexual in nature than a large proportion of the images of other companies. They provided copies of ads in a variety of magazines and websites to illustrate their view. They said members of the public were frequently exposed to far more sexually exploitative images in advertising, and even more so in newspapers, television and on the internet. AA said they believed that if the complaint was upheld it would be applying a standard of offensiveness and censorship which would be completely out of date in the more adult and non-repressive world of today, and would also mean that the vast majority of lingerie advertising would be deemed to be offensive, pornographic, exploitative or to inappropriately sexualise women.
Crack Magazine responded in relation to ad d. They said that although it was regrettable that someone had taken offence to the image, this was the first and only complaint they had received about an American Apparel ad in their magazine and as such it seemed that there was a common consensus amongst their readers that the material was not unduly offensive. They said that, although they appreciated the suggestive nature of the pose and clothes in question, in their opinion there were much worse ads in circulation.
They said their audience was an educated, mature, adult demographic that would be able to distinguish between a mildly suggestive ad intended to sell something and something totally inappropriate. They said they felt they were able to distinguish totally inappropriate ads and would censor them and inform their advertisers if that was the case. They did not feel that was the case with ad d.
We noted that ads a , b , h and i featured women whose breasts were exposed, and ads b , c , and g featured women whose buttocks were exposed.
We acknowledged that in some ads, for example ads for lingerie, it was reasonable to feature women in limited amounts of clothing. However, we noted that the majority of clothing items featured in the ads were outer garments, and considered that the nature of the women's poses meant that their breasts and buttocks were the focal points of the images rather than the products.
We considered that the nudity was therefore gratuitous. We also considered the women's poses in ads a , c , h and i were sexually provocative, because the poses emphasised their breasts and hips, and that although the poses in ads b and g were more subtle, the nudity and the flirtatious nature of the poses meant they were also sexually provocative. We noted the woman in ads d and e was wearing a jumper and knickers, but considered that the nature of her pose meant that the focal point of the image was on her groin rather than on the products.
We noted the woman was posing on an unmade bed, that she was gazing into the camera, her arms were raised above her head, her jumper was pulled up slightly and her legs were spread apart, and considered that her pose was therefore sexually provocative.
0コメント