ASA cracks down on objectification of men and women in advertising

The question

How careful do you need to be when using adult themes in advertising content? 

The key takeaway

The ASA condemns the objectification of men and women in advertisements, particularly when young people could potentially view that content. If ads do contain adult themes, these must be sensitively presented to avoid objectifying the model(s) in the advert and be only visible to mature audiences. 

The background

In April 2022, the ASA ruled on two different advertising campaigns:   

• soup company Renourish Ltd: this related to a poster campaign in January 2022. The posters presented a black and white image of a naked man with a large, orange bottle of soup covering his groin. Beneath the image, the poster read: “RE:NOURISH, #NOTHING TO HIDE”. The poster was displayed in two busy city centres
  
  
• “Brain Story: Tricky Puzzle”, a mobile app game developed by ABI Global Ltd: In the first of two scenes, two animated female characters are shown to play rock, paper scissors. When one character loses the game, the other is shown to slap her buttocks twice, following the apparent selection by the player of one of two close-up images of the character’s breasts and buttocks. The ad showed a second scene with a man and woman playing rock, paper scissors. When the woman loses, the ad again presents close-up images of her breasts and groin while a mouse icon moves between the two, suggesting the player is deciding which to select. In December 2021, the ad appeared within the mobile games “Gallery: Coloring Book & Décor” and “Alice’s Resort – Word Game”, both of which are available on the Google Play store.

The development

After receiving one complaint each, the ASA found the ads to be irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence. 

Renourish

Renourish defended the poster, claiming the hashtag “#nothingtohide” represented the brand’s values; the male model wore underwear in the original image and the deliberate obscuring of his groin area minimised any offence. The company said the nudity was not overly sexualised or degrading. Further, Renourish had carefully selected the two city locations to avoid offending local sensitivities and the ads did not appear within 100 metres of any schools. 

The ASA disagreed with Renourish’s evidence and ruled that the ad breached the CAP and BCAP Codes: 

• the image of the naked male model was completely unrelated to the soup product being promoted. Almost the entire face of the model had been cropped from the image, centring the viewer’s focus on his body. The placement of the soup bottle over his groin, combined with “#nothingtohide”, would be clearly understood as a reference to male genitalia
  
  
• the “untargeted medium” of displaying the posters in city centres meant the ad was likely to be seen by children and adults.

The ASA held the ad was “likely to have the effect of objectifying the man by using his physical features to draw attention to an unrelated product” and the ad was not to be used again in its current form. 

ABI Global Ltd

The ASA condemned the sexually suggestive nature of the forfeits being shown when the characters lost the games, and the fact the forfeits were determined by the player’s choice. The animated characters were “depicted as sexual objects, stripped of any agency or personality [and] entirely obedient to the player’s commands”. This depiction of women as objects was likely to cause widespread offence and serious harm. 

The ASA noted that the two games the ad featured in were rated PEGI 3 on the Google Play store, meaning they were suitable for children to download and play. While its offensive nature meant that the ad should not appear anywhere, it was irresponsible to include it in games accessible to children. There was no evidence that ABI Global had used age-verification tools to limit under-18s from viewing the ad. 

ABI Global failed to respond to the ASA, which was an additional breach of the Codes. 

Why is this important?

The rulings are a clear reminder of the ASA’s disapproval of the unnecessary sexualisation of both real and animated people. If ads do contain adult themes, they must do so sensitively to avoid the effect of objectifying the model and ensure that under-18s do not have access to the ad.

Any practical tips?

When considering the use of mature and/or suggestive themes, consider the messages that could be interpreted from the ad:

• Does the model, whether real or animated, have agency and choice? 
• Is the person presented with a personality, or simply as having desirable features? 
• Is the nudity gratuitous or sexualised?
• Does it have some relation to the product being sold?

You must also properly consider the potential audience. For online content, consider the age rating of the application or social media site. If the app has young users, make use of age-verification tools to limit this content to consumers aged 18 and over. It is harder to control the audience for poster campaigns so very careful thought needs to be given to where they are displayed. It’s not enough just to avoid locations close to places frequented by children, such as schools. 

Remember you must promptly respond to enquiries by the ASA. Not only will your evidence assist in defending the ad but failing to respond is a breach of the Codes in its own right. 

Finally, remember that sexualisation within advertising is very much in the ASA and CAP’s firing line, not least with CAP having published its advice note on the topic in February 2021, which set out the compliance risks of treating people as objects of sexual desire in marketing communications.