ASA Watch

A post on recruiter JD Recruitment's Facebook page, seen on 5 October 2021, featured details about a Branch Manager position. An image embedded in the post showed a woman covered in black paint, wearing bold red lipstick and an open leather jacket, licking her lips and covering her breasts with her left hand.

1. The complainant, who believed the ad featured a woman in blackface, challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious offence.

2. The ASA challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious offence because the image objectified the woman.

JD Recruitment Group Ltd said that they had not intended to cause any offence with the image and had used it to provide a striking visual image along with the subject matter of the post -- a job opportunity in the Blackburn area. They said that, on reflection, they could see how the image might have caused offence, and objectified the woman depicted, and that they would ensure they were more aware of the issues raised in future marketing communications.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

1. Upheld

The CAP Code required marketers to ensure that ads did not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, with particular care to be taken to avoid causing offence on various grounds of protected characteristics, including race.

The ASA noted that the woman shown was covered in black paint, with bold red lipstick, and the whites of the woman's eyes were prominent, contrasted against the black paint. We considered that imagery shared strong similarities with blackface makeup, which had historic connotations with mocking portrayals of black people. We understood that was a negative racial stereotype and was widely considered to be racist in nature.

We therefore considered its use in the ad was likely to cause serious offence on the grounds of race and concluded the ad breached the Code.

2. Upheld

We noted that the post was for a job vacancy, and the image of a partially topless woman bore no relation to the listing being advertised. We considered that the pose was suggestive in nature, with the woman depicted licking her lips suggestively and covering her exposed breasts with her hand. We considered that the ad was likely to have the effect of objectifying the woman by using her physical features to draw attention to an unrelated job listing. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to have caused serious offence.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told JD Recruitment Group Ltd to ensure they avoided causing serious offence on the grounds of race. We also told them not to portray women in a manner that objectified them and was likely to cause serious offence.

Two online display ads, for the clothing retailer Diesel, seen in March 2021:

• a. The first ad, seen on the websites for the Independent newspaper and Sky News included a slide show of images of couples kissing, some open-mouthed and on beds, alongside the caption DIESEL FOR SUCCESSFUL LIVING.

• b. The second ad, appearing on the website for Sky News, included a video that automatically played. The video featured voiceovers from several people who described being apart from their romantic partner before getting back together. The video included shots of couples kissing and beginning to undress in sexual positions, including partners straddling each other in bed.

Three complainants challenged whether the ads were irresponsible, because they included overtly sexual imagery in an untargeted medium where they could be seen by children. Response

Diesel (London) Ltd responded that they did not consider that the Sky News or Independent newspaper websites were likely to be of a particular appeal to children, or that they would be likely to be seen by children.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The images and video in both ads (a) and (b) included open-mouthed kissing, couples on beds together and couples in intimate positions. The ASA considered that, whilst not sexually explicit, the images were sexually suggestive.

Because the images were sexually suggestive we considered that Diesal should have taken all reasonable steps to exclude children from the target audience. We therefore considered what steps Diesel had taken to ensure that the ads were targeted away from children.

We acknowledged that neither the Independent nor Sky News websites were of particular appeal to children, and that the websites were more likely to be viewed by adults. However, we considered that there were likely to be some children in the audience of both websites and that Diesel should therefore have used age and interest-based targeting tools to ensure that the ads were targeted to adults and away from children. We understood that Diesel had used some interest-based targeting options, but it was not clear that those choices would have been such that the ads would have been targeted towards adults and away from children. Furthermore, Diesel had confirmed that they did not use any age-targeting tools to target the ads away from children.

Because the ads included sexually suggestive imagery and Diesel had not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that they were not served to children, we concluded that the ads were irresponsible and breached the Code.

We told Diesel (London) Ltd to ensure that, if their ads contained sexually suggestive imagery, they took all reasonable steps to ensure that they were not seen by children.

An in-app ad for the mobile app game Gold and Goblins, seen in the Hooked Inc: Fishing Games and Quizzland apps on 17 September 2021, included a video of a woman playing a game on her mobile phone, while behind her a man picked up a chair and drew it back over his head as if to strike the woman with it. The ad then showed the man looking at the phone over the woman's shoulder as she continued to play.

Two complainants, who considered the ad encouraged domestic violence, challenged whether it was offensive and socially irresponsible. Response

AppQuantum Publishing Ltd said they would immediately stop running the ad across all their platforms. They said they had intended the ad to be humorous in nature, and apologised for any offence it might have caused.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA acknowledged AppQuantum's willingness to remove the ad.

The ad depicted a man about to assault a woman, and we considered that consumers would understand from the context of the setting that it was because her attention was focused on the game she was playing, rather than on the man.

We considered that such a reference used in an ad for a mobile app game trivialised and condoned the serious and sensitive subject of domestic violence. This was likely to cause serious and widespread offence, and we considered the ad had not been prepared in a socially responsible manner.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told AppQuantum Publishing Ltd not to trivialise or condone domestic violence in its advertising.

A paid-for display ad for Banter King, an online novelty goods retailer, seen on 27 April 2021 in the Sky Sports app, featured images of several mugs, three of which stated COCK HUNGRY WHORE, MY SON IS A CUNT HE GETS IT FROM HIS FATHER and LIVE LAUGH TOSSER.

A complainant challenged whether the ad was:

1. likely to cause serious or widespread offence; and

2. irresponsibly targeted. Response

Banter Group Ltd told us that they had not intended to cause offence. They said that they would be stricter on how and where they placed ads in the future, and had also disabled any products with potentially offensive aspects from appearing on their ads.

Sky told us that it was not an ad they would normally allow on their platform, and that it had not been shown because of a proactive scheduling decision. They explained that they had tried to ensure the Sky Sports app only carried suitable advertising by utilising a strong block list and having rules in place across their ad server and third-party vendors, which were designed to prevent unsuitable or offensive ads from appearing. They also told us that they carried out weekly manual checks on ads on their platforms, and removed inappropriate content when they became aware of it.

However, they explained that despite those controls occasionally content that did not meet their standards could get through their filters, which had happened in this case. They explained that could occur where ads came through under masked URLs, bypassing their blocks, or where the ads were based on a user's cookies, cache, or their search history.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The Code required marketers to avoid causing serious or widespread offence, and to ensure that ads were appropriately targeted. We acknowledged Banter Groups assurance that they had taken steps to prevent products with the potential to cause offence from appearing in ads in the future.

However, consumer research by the ASA and others showed the use of the words such as cunt was so likely to offend, that they should not be used at all in marketing communications even if they were relevant to the product, unless very carefully targeted to an audience that was unlikely to be offended by them.

We further considered that the words cock and whore were strong swear words that were also likely to cause serious offence to a general audience.

The Sky Sports app was rated as having content suitable for all ages, and we considered it was likely to appeal to a broad audience. The advertiser provided no information on how they targeted their advertising, or if they used interest-based criteria when doing so.

We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, and had not been responsibly targeted.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Banter Group Ltd to take care to avoid causing serious or widespread offence in future and to ensure their ads were appropriately targeted.

ASA is demanding that advertisers snoop on people's browsing habits so as to build up a profile of people, so as to determine their age and suitability for advertising for gambling, alcohol and frowned upon food products. ASA was particularly considering advertising on websites that appeal to all ages, and so the subject matter of the website is not enough context to determine the age of users.

And good luck to the snoopers if they think they can infer that Facebook and Twitter users are over 13s and that Pornhub users are all adults.

ASA explained:

We have published the findings of our latest proactive monitoring sweep, making world-leading use of Avatar technology to assess the distribution of ads for alcohol, gambling, and high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) products in websites and YouTube channels attracting a mixed-age audience, predominantly composed of adults.

As a result of our findings, we are calling on advertisers to make better use of audience and media targeting tools to help minimise children's exposure to age-restricted ads in mixed-age sites.

The monitoring underpinning this project was focused on:

• Mixed-age online media - consisting of non-logged in websites and YouTube channels, with adults comprising 75%-90% of the audience

• Dynamically served ads for alcohol, gambling and HFSS products; the underlying technology used to serve these ads enables advertisers to target subsets of the sites' audience based on data known or inferred about them e.g. their age, location, online browsing interests etc.

We used Avatars for the purpose of identifying trends in how these ads are being delivered to adult, child and/or age-unknown audience groups. The Avatars are constructed to reflect the online browsing profile of these age groups, but their automated actions -- visiting 250 web pages on both desktop and mobile devices, twice a day -- are obviously not indicative of real world online behaviours.

This explains why our six uniquely age-categorised Avatars received 27,395 ads , published on 250 sites , over a three week monitoring period. These high figures clearly do not reflect real-world exposure levels to advertising, but the data does give us a good basis for assessing whether age-restricted ads are being targeted away from children in online media attracting a heavily weighted (75%+) adult audience.

We found that:

• Gambling ads were served in broadly similar numbers to Child and Adult Avatars, with no significant skew towards the adult profiles. The Neutral Avatar (which has no browsing history to provide indicative age information) was served noticeably fewer Gambling ads in mixed-age media

• HFSS ads were served in broadly similar numbers to Child and Adult Avatars, with no significant skew towards the adult profiles, and notably higher numbers of ads served to the Neutral Avatar

• Alcohol ads were not served to any Avatars

Advertisers are not allowed to serve age-restricted ads in children's media (sites commissioned for children, or where children make up 25% or more of the audience), but these ads are allowed in mixed-age media attracting a heavily weighted (75%+) adult audience, so long as they stick to strict rules to ensure the creative content of the ads don't appeal to children or exploit their inexperience.

We, however, believes it is a legitimate regulatory objective to seek to minimise children's exposure to age-restricted ads generally and therefore wants to see advertisers of these products use available tools to more effectively target their ads away from children, even where the vast majority of an audience is over 18.

Two paid-for Facebook posts by the clothing retailer Motel Rocks:

a. The first post, seen on 9 April 2021, featured a female model wearing a pink dress getting out of a car. The post included the caption Shop our 'Rose Flock Pale Pink' print on site now.

b. The second post, seen in May 2021, featured a model wearing a halter neck dress. The post included the caption Shop our weekly drops of the hottest Spring pieces on site now.

Five complainants, who believed the models appeared to be unhealthily thin in ads (a) and (b), challenged whether the ads were irresponsible.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

Both ads showed a still image, which when clicked played a video. The ASA understood the complainants had raised concerns about the way the models appeared in the still images and we therefore assessed those images only.

We considered that the model's legs in ad (a) looked very thin, with her thighs appearing to be the same width as her lower leg, and out of proportion with the rest of her body. That impression was exaggerated by the ad's lighting, the angle of the image and the position of the model getting out of the car. We concluded that ad (a) made the model look unhealthily thin and that the ad was therefore irresponsible.We considered the cut of the neckline of the dress in ad (b) placed emphasis on the model's left arm and shoulders. We considered the position of the model's arm made her arm and shoulders appear very thin, with the model's bones in those areas appearing prominently. We also considered the angle of the model's left arm made her upper arm appear noticeable thinner than her elbow joint. Therefore, we also concluded that ad (b) made the model look unhealthily thin and that the ad was irresponsible.

The ads must not appear again in their current form.

Call for evidence: racial and ethnic stereotyping in advertising

The death of George Floyd in 2020 and the global, high-profile reaction which followed brought to the forefront discussions about racial inequality. From its perspective as the UK advertising regulator, the ASA has been reflecting on what can be done to address factors that cause racial and ethnic minorities to experience disproportionately adverse outcomes in different aspects of their lives.

The ASA has a strong record of banning ads that are likely to cause serious or widespread offence on the grounds of race and ethnicity. As a proactive regulator, the ASA must ensure that we are aware of how societal values and prevailing standards are constantly evolving and what this means for our interpretation and application of the advertising rules.

We are now putting out a call for evidence to help us establish whether and, if so, to what extent racial and ethnic stereotypes, when featured in ads, may contribute to real world harms, for example, unequal outcomes for different racial and ethnic groups. In the context of the call for evidence, we're particularly interested in the following areas:

• The depiction of race and ethnicity in advertising, including examples of racial and ethnic stereotypes.

• How the issues of objectification and sexualisation relate to race or ethnicity in advertising.

• How particular cultures, or racial and ethnic groups with particular religious affiliations, are portrayed in advertising.

• The use of humour relating to race or ethnicity in advertising.

We recognise that evidence can take many forms. Stakeholders may choose to submit existing evidence, secondary analysis, bespoke research or examples. Both quantitative and qualitative evidence would be useful to us.

We are also interested in hearing from members of the public about how this type of advertising has affected them and we would welcome your own personal observations or views.

An in-game ad for the online game Dream Zone: Interactive Story , was seen on 4 January 2021 in the online property trading game, Landlord. It featured a cartoon video of a woman being splashed in her face with water by a faulty tap. On-screen text stated Turn it off. She bent down and looked into a cupboard under the sink and saw a leaking pipe. Behind her was a woman wearing a towel about to hand over a mobile phone. Two buttons were shown with the options Help her and Take advantage. A super-imposed cartoon hand selected the Take advantage button. The woman wearing the towel bit her lip and the video shot to the first woman's face. She displayed a startled expression and then smiled. Beneath the video, text stated Play and have fun You choose your destiny.

The app was described by SWAG MASHA in the Apple App store as a series of interactive stories for guys and a thrilling game for men.

A complainant, who believed the ad was sexually suggestive, challenged whether the ad:

1. was irresponsible and offensive because it objectified women; and

2. had been irresponsibly targeted.

Reality Games, the publisher of the game app in which the ad appeared, said that since they were notified of the complaint, they had blocked ads for the game Dream Zone: Interactive Story from being served.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

1. Upheld

The ad, which was for a dating and love simulation game for men, featured two women; one looking into a cupboard and the other behind her wearing a towel. Two options appeared on-screen for the woman standing up: to either help her or take advantage of the woman looking into the cupboard. We considered that the option to take advantage had sexual connotations and alluded to non-consensual sexual activity where the woman looking into the cupboard would be unaware of the second character's intentions. We considered that the ad objectified and stereotyped women by presenting them as objects in a scenario designed for the purposes of titillating viewers. Overall, we considered that the ad was likely to cause serious offence and included a gender stereotype in a way that was likely to cause harm. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and breached the Code.

2. Upheld

The ad was for a game that featured adult themes and sexually suggestive content, which was seen in an unrelated online property trading game. We considered that because this specific ad was irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence it was not suitable to be featured in any game. More generally, we expected Dream Zone to have targeted their ads for adult games to users aged 18 and over by using age-verification measures including interest-based targeting factors that described an adult audience and excluded a child audience. However, the ad was seen in a game that had an age rating of 4+ years and therefore could be downloaded by children. The Dream Zone game had an age rating of 17+ years but did not feature any verification measures that would prevent the game being downloaded by children who had seen the ad.

Furthermore, we considered that those playing an unrelated game would not expect to be served an ad for a dating game which featured adult content. We acknowledged that on receipt of the complaint the publisher of the game in which the ad was seen had taken measures to ensure that the ad would not be shown in the game. Nevertheless, Dream Zone were responsible for ensuring that their ads were correctly targeted and had not done so. We therefore concluded that the ad had been irresponsibly targeted.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Swag Masha LLC to ensure that their ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women. We told them to ensure that they did not present gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm and to ensure that their ads were responsibly targeted.

An ad for SportMax, a clothing retailer, seen in The Sunday Times Style magazine on 28 February 2021, featured a female model pictured from the side. The model was wearing a long sleeved ankle length black dress with boots. Issue

The complainants, who believed the model was unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible.

Max Mara Fashion Group said they did not agree that the model was unhealthily thin or that the ad was irresponsible. They said the model was well known and chosen for her particular beauty and extraordinary aspect and that she featured regularly in fashion shows for many famous fashion houses. They said she took part in fashion shows in Paris where, since 2017, models who were unhealthily thin were not allowed on the runway.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA accepted that none of the model's flesh was visible. She was wearing a thin maxi length black dress which had long sleeves and she was posed in mid-step, looking down, with her arms hanging down by her side and her shoulder length hair partially obscuring her face. We noted that she was photographed from the side, which drew attention to the shape of her body and highlighted her very thin frame and the protrusion of her hip bone which was visible through the fabric. We also considered that the contrast of the ad's background lighting, which had a sepia tone, against the black dress, further accentuated the silhouette of her frame and the model's sombre facial expression and posture gave her a gaunt appearance. We therefore considered that she appeared unhealthily thin. For those reasons we considered that the model appeared underweight and therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible.

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

A paid-for Instagram post by @babyboofashion, an online clothing retailer, seen in October 2020, depicted various shots of women wearing lingerie and angel wings or animal ears. A voiceover stated, Halloween is the one night a year when a girl can dress like a total [bleeped out slut] and no other girls can say anything about it. The hard-core girls just wear lingerie and some form of animal ears. The video ended with a black screen with BABYBOO. BABYBOOFASHION.COM in white writing and a voiceover stating, Babyboofashion.com.

A complainant, who believed the ad was sexist, objectifying, and gave a harmful message to young women, challenged whether it was offensive and irresponsible.

Babyboo did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The ASA was concerned by Babyboo's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code. We reminded Babyboo of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.

The ad depicted various models wearing lingerie and animal ears or angel wings. We considered the bright lighting and clothes rails in the background of some of the shots suggested the models were in the Babyboo shop and modelling the clothes. Although the models were shown in lingerie, we considered that most of the poses were not overly sexualised. However, in contrast, one shot depicted two models in lingerie and angel wings, kneeling on a bed with their legs apart. Both models looked at the camera seductively, while one of them twirled her hair and the other model moved her hands along her thighs. We considered that the shots of the models on the bed were suggestive, the poses were unnecessarily sexualised and had the effect of objectifying the women.

The accompanying voiceover stated, Halloween is the one night a year when a girl can dress like a total [bleeped out] and no other girls can say anything about it. We understood that the bleep censor was to obscure the word slut, but considered that it would be obvious to viewers what the obscured word was. The voiceover further stated that, The hard-core girls just wear lingerie and some form of animal ears. We understood that the voiceover quote was taken from a film. However, we considered it was presented out of context and was likely to be taken at face value.

We considered viewers were likely to understand from the ad that women who dressed and presented themselves in a similar way to the models shown were sluts. The term slut was a negative stereotype of women and was commonly used to refer to women who had or were perceived to have many sexual partners, in a derogatory way that passed judgment on those behaviours. We considered that the use of that word in the context of the ad was likely to be seen as demeaning to women. Further to that, the models were depicted in an objectifying way, accompanied by a message that this type of look and behaviour was aspirational -- for example, the reference to hard-core girls alongside images of girls in animal ears and lingerie implied that taking the idea to its extreme was to be admired.

While there was nothing inherently wrong with dressing in the way shown in the ad, or having multiple sexual partners, we considered that linking those things with the denigrating term slut, and implying women should aspire to being objectified, was problematic. Overall, we considered that the ad was likely to cause serious offence and included a gender stereotype in a way that was likely to cause harm. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and breached the Code.

The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd to ensure their advertising was socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women. We also told Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd to ensure they did not present gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm in their future advertising.

A pre-roll ad on YouTube for rapper Bamby H2O's single, titled Over It , seen on 16 December 2020, featured an instrumental played over scenes of a powdery substance being cut with a razor, a rolled up cigarette being lit and a rolled up bank note being used to consume a powdery substance. The opening lyrics stated Fucked up over you and Drugged up at the function slurring all my words!. One scene included the outline of a woman pulling down her top to reveal her breasts. The ad included lyrics such as Shawty wanna fuck with me she gotta feed me first, Double D's I'm drowning in disbelief and You chase a bitch and repeated references to the consumption of drugs throughout.

The ad was seen before a synth wave music playlist.

A complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible because it featured references to drug use and paraphernalia, nudity and explicit language.

Bamby H2O did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The ASA was concerned by Bamby H2O's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code. We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a substantive response to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.

The ad was for a full-length rap music video and was seen before an unrelated music playlist on YouTube. It featured a number of scenes depicting the consumption of illegal drugs, including a bottle of amphetamine tablets and a powder consumed through a rolled up bank note. We considered that the ad, which featured illegal drugs and drug-use was irresponsible for depicting the use of drugs in this context. The lyrics also referenced being drugged up and featured expletives such as the word fucking which was likely to seriously offend many people. The ad also featured the outline of a woman exposing her breasts which we considered was gratuitous and objectified women.

While the video was shot using visual effects, its content was graphic and explicit. Furthermore, we considered that viewers of an unrelated music playlist would not expect to be served an ad that featured drug references, nudity and strong language. We concluded that the ad was irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence and therefore breached the Code.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Bamby H2O to ensure that their ads did not cause serious or widespread offence, and to ensure their ads were not socially irresponsible.

A VOD ad for Ladbrokes, seen on All4 on 25 October 2020, showed various people using the Ladbrokes app on their mobile phones. One scene showed a clip of a horse race, before showing a man in a cafe with several other people, looking away from them at something else in the distance, over the shoulder of one of them. A voice-over stated, Come starter's orders, I'm a bag of nerves. The man's leg was shaking, making the food and cutlery on the table shake. A woman said to him, Really?, capturing his attention briefly, before he turned away again.

A single complainant challenged whether the ad depicted gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible.

Ladbrokes did not believe the ad depicted socially irresponsible behaviour because the man was not shown placing a bet nor indeed talking about gambling. He was simply stating that he got nervous ahead of starter's orders which would be his natural reaction whether or not he was gambling. They said the ad featured people in everyday situations, and characters continuing with life in normal day-to-day activities.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The CAP Code stated that ads must not portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm. CAP's Advertising Guidance on Gambling advertising: responsibility and problem gambling made clear that ads which portrayed or otherwise referred to individuals displaying problem gambling behaviours or other behavioural indicators linked to problem gambling were likely to breach the Code.

Marketers should take care to avoid an implication of such behaviours, for instance, outwardly light-hearted or humorous approaches that could be regarded as portrayals of those behaviours. Behaviours associated with people displaying or at risk from problem gambling included detachment from surroundings and preoccupation with gambling.

We noted Clearcast's view that the ad implied the man was watching a race on television, and we agreed that based on the scene and the simultaneous voice-over referring to starter's orders, viewers were likely to interpret the ad as showing him watching the television as the race was about to begin. He was watching intently, and his shaking the table with his knee which, while clearly intended to be humorous, suggested he was preoccupied with the race while his food remained untouched. He was described as being a bag of nerves, which we considered viewers were likely to interpret was as a result of his having placed a bet on the race. It was clear that he was engrossed in the race to the extent that his companion had to point out his actions to bring his attention away from watching the television. We noted that, after responding to his companion, he appeared to turn away, though the shot was brief and he was looking down. We disagreed with Clearcast's view that the man was never disconnected from his companion, or from the room, and considered viewers would assume from his behaviour that he was preoccupied with the outcome of the race in relation to a bet he had placed. We also considered that the man was obviously detached from his surroundings as he watched.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ad depicted gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible, and therefore breached the Code.