Hideous Bertolli Advert Update

June 29, 2013



Been meaning to share my reply from the Advertising Standards authority, or at lease parts of the reply. Apparently ASA received a significant number of complaints about the advert:

1. That the ads were offensive and sexist, because they showed a man being objectified and humiliated, and implied that was socially acceptable. Many of those cpns noted that the adds would not be acceptable if the gender roles had been reversed.

2. That the ads were offensive, irresponsible and harmful, because they showed sexual harassment and bullying and might be seen to encourage or condone sexual harassment, bullying, or inappropriate behaviour of sexual nature.

3. That the ads were offensive and irresponsible, because they trivialised the seriousness of sex-related crimes, and sexual assault in particular.

4. That the TV ads were unsuitable for broadcast at a time when children might be watching.

5. That nudity in the ads was offensive because it was irrelevant to the product.

6. That the ads were offensive and degrading to men.

7. That the ads were offensive and harmful, because they condoned violence to dogs.

8. That the ads were offensive because they trivialised dog attacks.

9. That the ads were offensive because they portrayed old women as being promiscuous and lecherous.

10. That the ads were offensive and racist, because they portrayed a negative and stereotyped view of Mediterranean people and Italians in particular.

11. That the ads were irresponsible and might be seen to condone and encourage bullying or ant-social behaviour to younger viewers or children.

Whilst the Council acknowledged that the theme and humour in the ads might not appeal to everyone, they considered that most viewers would understand that they were attempting to be light hearted and mischievous, rather than sinister or predatory.

The Council did not consider the ads likely to be seen by most viewers as sexist, or to cause serious or widespread offence for that reason. Furthermore, they did not consider that the behaviour shown in the ads was likely to be seen as condoning or encouraging sexual harassment, bullying or inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature. The Council did not consider the ads likely to cause serious or widespread offence, to be seen as irresponsible, or to cause harm for those reasons.

Whilst the the council noted that the man was the butt of the women's joke, they did not consider the ads likely to be seen as degrading to men in general and did not consider it likely to cause serious or widespread offence for that reason.

The Council did not consider the ads likely to be seen as irresponsible or as encouraging or condoning bullying or anti-social behaviour amongst younger viewers or children.

So that's OK then...


1 comment:

Esther Andrews said...

Right.
Thanks for the update.
I'll keep that in mind next time I'm out with a female friend and have the opportunity to humiliate some vulnerable young man. It's all in good fun.
Ha!
How absurd!!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
CopyRight © | Theme Designed By Hello Manhattan