Download 0136/13 - Advertising Standards Bureau

Case Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
Case Number
Advertiser
Product
Type of Advertisement / media
Date of Determination
DETERMINATION
0136/13
Zerella
Food and Beverages
Radio
01/05/2013
Dismissed
ISSUES RAISED
2.1 - Discrimination or Vilification Gender
2.4 - Sex/sexuality/nudity S/S/N - general
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
Zarella Fresh is advertising their Maranca low-carb potato. There are four advertisements in
this campaign, all of which refer to Maranca the Hot Potato. In three of the advertisements,
there are two female 'hot' potatoes talking to each other about how hot they are.
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included
the following:
These ads keep referring to Maranca the "hot" potato and similar descriptions, effectively
inviting the listener to view the potato with "sexy" feminine characteristics. The ads are
simply blatantly sexist.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this
advertisement include the following:
Advertisement Complaint Reference: 0136/13 – dmg Radio
I refer to your email and copy of complaint dated 16 April 2013 concerning the investigation
by the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) in relation to a complaint received relating to
advertisements for Zerella Fresh (ZF), broadcast on Fiveaa.
The Advertisement
The Advertisements are an irreverent tongue in cheek promotion for ZF‟s low-carb Maranca
potatoes.
We note that the complaint received by the ASB on 15 April 2013 makes reference to the
Advertisements being sexist due to the use of „sexy‟ feminine characteristics.
AANA Advertiser Code of Ethics
The complainant asserts that ZF‟s Advertisements for Maranca Low-Carb potatoes are sexist
as they use what they consider to be „sexy feminine characteristics‟.
Whilst we can understand and appreciate the complainant‟s point of view in respect of the
Advertisements, Fiveaa does not think that the Advertisements are in breach of the AANA
Advertiser Code of Ethics or other applicable regulation.
At the outset it is important to note that Fiveaa does not consider itself strictly bound by the
Code. Nevertheless, as a matter of corporate policy and broadcasting practice, Fiveaa uses
its best endeavours to comply with the Code at all times.
The two sections of the Code relevant to this complaint are Section 2.1 and Section 2.2,
which provide that:
2.1 Advertising or Marketing Communication shall not portray people or depict material in a
way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account
of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, mental
illness or political belief.
2.2 Advertising or Marketing Communications should not employ sexual appeal in a manner
which is exploitative and degrading of any individual or group of people.
The Macquarie Dictionary defines „sexist‟ as:
1 Of an attitude which stereotypes a person according to gender, or sexual preference, rather
than judging on individual merits
2 Of or relating to sexual exploitation or discrimination, especially in advertising, language,
job opportunities, etc.
The complainant specifically refers to the Advertisements describing the potatoes as „hot‟,
thus inviting listeners to view the potato with “sexy” feminine characteristics. This was
clearly the intention of the Advertisement however Fiveaa doesn‟t believe that something
being „sexy‟ isn‟t automatically sexist. Sexism is defined as discrimination based on gender,
or the promotion of gender stereotypes and while Fiveaa acknowledges that the female
characters in the Advertisements use sexy tones and that the language is cheeky and
irreverent, the language is not discriminatory, exploitative or degrading to women, nor to
any person or group of people. The sexual inferences within the advertisement are subtle and
the tone light-hearted. As such, we don‟t believe any of the Advertisements breach Code 2.1
or 2.2.
Fiveaa‟s target and predominant audience is adults aged 35+, as confirmed by regular
surveys conducted by Nielsen. Fiveaa respectfully submits that the language and tone used in
the Advertisements was appropriate for the intended and target audience and does not
include anything which is offensive, exploitative or sexist.
In light of the context in which the Advertisement was broadcast, Fiveaa believes that the
majority of its audience would regard the Advertisement as light-hearted and irreverent.
For these reasons, Fiveaa strongly believes that the Advertisement does not breach clause
2.1 or 2.2 of the Code.
Whilst Fiveaa does not consider that the Advertisements raise issues under section 2 of the
Code, Fiveaa does value feedback on the Advertisements and intends to monitor any similar
complaints received in the future to ensure that these advertisements are not offensive to a
significant proportion of the community.
We would welcome the opportunity to provide any further clarification that the ASB may
require in relation to this matter.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches
Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the complainant‟s concern that the advertisement implies potatoes have sexy,
feminine qualities and are sexist.
The Board reviewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser‟s response.
The Board considered whether the advertisement was in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code.
Section 2.1 of the Code states: “Advertising or Marketing Communications shall not portray
people or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section
of the community on account of…gender..”
The Board noted that this series of four radio advertisements features female voiceovers
pretending to be potatoes talking to one another about how hot they are.
The Board noted that whilst the „potatoes‟ are clearly meant to be female, in the Board‟s view
suggesting that vegetables have feminine qualities, or that females consider each other to be
hot, does not of itself amount to discrimination or vilification towards women.
The Board determined that the material depicted did not discriminate against a section of the
community and did not breach Section 2.1 of the Code.
The Board considered whether the advertisement was in breach of Section 2.4 of the Code.
Section 2.4 of the Code states: “Advertising or Marketing Communications shall treat sex,
sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience”.
The Board noted the complainant‟s concerns about the references to being „hot‟ and
considered that whilst the language and tone of the advertisement is sexualised it is relatively
mild and it is clear that they are talking about vegetables and therefore the advertisement is
not inappropriate for a broad audience which could include children.
The Board considered that the advertisement did treat the issue of sex, sexuality and nudity
with sensitivity to the relevant audience and determined that the advertisement did not breach
Section 2.4 of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board
dismissed the complaint.