| 29th July |
Big Knockers at the ASA... |
|
| |
ASA easily offended by poster with a trivial joke
Permalink |
Based on
article
from asa.org.uk
|
A
poster for Tricketts, a door and window installation company, featured a topless
woman whose breasts were covered by door knockers. Text stated WE SELL BIG
KNOCKERS Window Hinges Door Handles Window Handles ....
Issue
A member of the public, who believed the poster was demeaning to
women and unsuitable for general display where children might see it,
challenged whether the poster was offensive.
Tricketts said the poster had been on display for a little over two
months and in that time they received positive feedback from customers,
who believed the poster was humorous. They said they had received only
one complaint and therefore did not believe the poster was demeaning to
women or likely to cause offence to the general public.
ASA Assessment: Upheld
The ASA noted that the text WE SELL BIG KNOCKERS was clearly a
crude comparison between the womans breasts and the door knockers
Tricketts sold, and that the image had clearly been chosen for that
reason. We also noted the image bore no relevance to the products sold
by Tricketts, a door and window installation company.
We considered that the image and text were likely to be seen to
objectify and degrade women by linking their physical attributes to the
advertiser's door and window products, and concluded that the image, in
an untargeted medium where it could be seen by a general audience, and
which bore no relevance to the advertised products, had the potential to
cause serious offence to some consumers.
The poster breached CAP Code clauses 5.1 and 5.2 (Taste and decency).
|
| 22nd July |
Whingers Get a Good Kicking... |
|
| |
ASA reject 1290 complaints about blind football advert
Permalink |
Based on
article
from asa.org.uk
See
video from
youtube.com
|
A
TV ad for a bookmaker Paddy Power showed a game of football being played by two
teams of blindfolded men, using a ball which had a bell inside it. The ad opened
with a shot of a kitbag marked Blind Wanderers FC, then showed the
players mid-game. One player kicked the ball off the pitch and a cat, wearing a
bell on its collar, ran on to the pitch and ran across it, with its bell
ringing. The referee was about to blow his whistle, but one of the men was shown
taking a kick and a thud and loud meow were then heard, although no contact
between the player and the cat was shown on screen. The referee dropped his
whistle in shock and the players stood around. A man in a suit appeared on the
pitch, patted the shoulder of the player who had taken the kick and said
Paddy Power can't get Tiddles back, there's nothing we can do about that, but we
can get you your money back with our money-back specials and handed the
player some bank notes. The man looked upwards with a quizzical expression and
there was a shot of the cat walking along the branch of a tree, meowing. The
final voice-over said Check 'em out before you bet at Paddy Power … and
the player taking the kick was shown again, in slow motion, and a faint meow was
again heard in the background.
Issue
1089 viewers objected to the ad.
- 220 viewers objected that the ad was offensive to blind people.
- 1070 viewers objected that the ad was offensive and harmful,
because it might encourage or condone cruelty to animals.
ASA Assessment: Not upheld
1. Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged that it was not offensive or disrespectful in
itself to create an ad referring to or involving people with a
disability. We noted that the ad featured, and was supported by members
of the England Blind Football Team, and showed blind people enjoying a
game of football. We considered that the action in the ad would be
interpreted by most viewers as a humorous depiction of a fictional
situation, with the humour derived from the surreal and improbable
circumstances, when an unforeseeable and accidental action occurred. We
considered it was unlikely to be seen by most viewers as malicious or to
imply that blind people were likely to cause harm to animals whilst
playing football. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to be
seen as humiliating, stigmatising or undermining to blind people and was
unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
2. Not upheld
We noted the ad was not aimed at children and was not shown in and
around children's programmes. We considered the situation in the ad was
surreal and improbable. We noted that the action did not directly show
any footballers making contact with the cat and furthermore it pointedly
ensured that the cat was shown ultimately unharmed, walking on the
branch of a tree. We acknowledged that some viewers had not found the ad
to be in good taste, but because it was surreal, farcical and
light-hearted in tone, we considered it was unlikely to be seen by most
viewers as a gratuitous or realistic portrayal of cruel treatment of an
animal, or that it would encourage or condone cruelty to animals. We
therefore concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread
offence.
|
| 22nd July |
They Should Have Seen It Coming... |
|
| |
Ofcom fines TV channel advertising money grabbing psychic
Permalink |
Based on
article
from asa.org.uk
See
video from
youtube.com
|
|
|
Ofcom Sanctions
Committee:
Shall we fine them? |
Ofcom has fined DM Digital Television Limited £17,500 for seriously
and repeatedly breaching advertising rules.
In February 2009 the digital station – which broadcasts mainly in
Urdu to the UK Asian community – broadcast an advertisement for a
spiritual healer called Professor Mohammed Zain.
The Advertising Standards Authority subsequently received a complaint
from Manchester Trading Standards, which been contacted by the social
worker of a viewer who had approached Professor Zain after seeing the
advert.
The viewer had paid money to Professor Zain on two occasions for help
in finding a partner. According to the viewer, Professor Zain told her
to credit his account with £110 and to pray for one week and then to
call him back. When she did this, he told her to credit his bank account
with a further £1,400 and in return he would find her a partner. The
viewer proceeded to transfer the requested money.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found the advertisement was
in breach of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code because
it was misleading and likely to exploit the vulnerable and that it
represented advice to individuals, based on psychic or faith based
practices for personal problems.
In serious cases the ASA can refer matters to Ofcom as the backstop
regulator, which has the power to fine broadcasters for breaching
advertising rules.
Ofcom considered that the breach was serious because it resulted in
actual financial harm to a viewer.
Ofcom also concluded that the breach demonstrated a repeated failure
on behalf of DM Digital to ensure that the material it broadcast met the
requirements of the TV Advertising Code.
|
| 21st July |
Advertising for a New Censor... |
|
| |
CAP Chairman steps down
Permalink |
Based on
article
from marketingweek.co.uk
|
The
self-regulatory bodies that write up the codes of advertising are on the
hunt for a new chairman now that incumbent Andrew Brown is to step down.
Brown has chaired the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) since
1999. He has chaired CAP and BCAP through the extensive review of
the advertising codes that were announced in revised form earlier this
year.
Andrew says It is time to hand over to a new generation;
advertising self-regulation has changed dramatically over the last ten
years in both content and remit. This process needs to continue as the
business faces the challenges posed by new media.
Brown will stand down at the end of March 2011 and Sir Chris Powell,
chairman of the Advertising Standards Board of Finance, will be
responsible for appointing his successor.
|
| 20th July |
Going Soft on Playboy TV... |
|
| |
Playboy TV cleared to advertise in Sport magazine
Permalink |
The advert censor doesn't seem concerned about the misleading use of
'hardest' to suggest that Playboy TV is hardcore when it is in fact
strictly softcore
Based on
article
from asa.org.uk
|
A
two-page ad in Sport magazine for an adult TV subscription channel was
titled WHERE ARE ALL THE MEN? STAYING IN JUST GOT FUN and showed
an image of a woman in her underwear standing in an empty pole dancing
club. The ad included the text THE 6 CHANNEL LINE UP The world's most
beautiful women come to your screen and bring you the best in quality
erotic entertainment Watch the hardest British sex featuring the UK's
filthiest talent Three channels of themed programming showing wall to
wall non-stop sex Watch the best Top Shelf girls being absolutely filthy
every night of the week.
Issue
- Two complainants objected that the ad was offensive, sexist and
degrading towards women.
- One of the complainants also objected that the ad was
irresponsible because they believed it was inappropriate for
publication in a free magazine where it could easily be seen by
children.
ASA Assessment: Not upheld
1. Not upheld
We understood that, although the free magazine was potentially
available to a large variety of consumers, it was targeted at men who
were interested in sport and efforts had been made to distribute in
accordance with that demographic. We understood the phrases filthiest
talent and Top Shelf girls being absolutely filthy every night of
the week to be enticements to readers to trial the adult
subscription service and considered that the ad itself was not
commenting on women in general or inviting readers to view all women in
that way and was unlikely to be seen by most readers as sexist and
degrading. Although we understood that some people might have found the
ad and the product which it promoted to be distasteful, we considered
that it did not contain explicit imagery or text that was likely to
cause serious or widespread offence to readers of Sport.
We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread
offence to readers of Sport magazine and was unlikely to be seen as
sexist and degrading
2. Not upheld
We noted, although young boys may have been interested in the content
of Sport, the magazine was targeted at adult males and the manner of
distribution meant that it was unlikely that children would be directly
handed a copy or would be able to pick it up from the other locations in
which it was available. We concluded that, because children were
unlikely to see the ad, it was acceptable for publication in Sport
magazine.
|
| 19th July |
End of the World for Whingers... |
|
| |
ASA turn down their ludicrous complaints about Pepsi Max advert
Permalink |
Based on
article
from asa.org.uk
See
video from
youtube.com
|
A
TV and Video on Demand (VOD) ad for Pepsi Max.
The ad showed a woman and a man sitting near each other at a bar. The
man leant towards the woman and said Hey, if you need another? to
which she replied I'm fine. A breaking news story then played on
the bar's TV and a reporter said I can now officially confirm that a
huge asteroid is on a collision course with Earth and will destroy all
life. The barman began to panic and scrambled along the bar shouting
We're gonna die, we're all gonna die!. The customers then fled
leaving only the man and woman at the bar. The reporter then said
Reach out to someone, anyone who's near, show them you love them. Don't
be alone. The woman and the man then looked at each other for a
moment before she ran towards him and they kissed as they fell to the
floor. The ad then cut to the bar's kitchen where the barman and the
reporter from the TV were shown in a fake news studio. They were
revealed to be friends of the man from the bar as he walked in. The
reporter asked him And?, the man replied Thank you guys, I
love you. Music played and all three men were then shown dancing and
drinking the product. On-screen text stated MAX IT! above a
product shot.
Issues
1. 36 viewers challenged whether the ad was harmful, because they
believed the ad condoned deception as a means of obtaining sex, condoned
rape or sexual assault and promoted casual sex.
2. 38 viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive, because they
believed the ad was sexist, demeaned women, portrayed men as sexual
predators and portrayed women as sex objects.
3. 8 viewers challenged whether The ad was suitable to be broadcast
at times when children might be watching.
ASA Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the men used an elaborate ruse, including the
staging of a fake news broadcast about the imminent destruction of the
world, to entice the woman to kiss one of them. We considered this
scenario was obviously fantastical and could clearly not be imitated by
viewers. We also noted that the men did not use physical coercion and
that the woman did not flee the bar with the other customers, but
instead chose to stay behind before running towards the man, jumping on
him and initiating the kiss. We therefore considered that she was shown
to take the initiative in the encounter, rather than being depicted as
being intimidated or acting against her will.
We noted that, although the two were seen kissing and falling to the
floor, this was clearly a consensual act between two adults and that
there was no nudity or an explicit sex scene. Nor did we consider that
the ad suggested that such an encounter would be acceptable in more
normal circumstances or that casual sex was acceptable. We therefore
concluded the ad was not harmful in the manner suggested by the
complainants.
2. Not upheld
We understood that the mans ability to elicit the kiss from the woman
was a result solely of the elaborate ruse which he had concocted with
his friends and that serious coercion or violence were not used,
threatened or implied. We therefore considered that the men were
depicted as comedic rather than predatory.
We also noted that all the customers in the bar were seen to fall for
the hoax and react by panicking and fleeing. However, the woman was
shown to remain calm before taking the initiative to kiss the man. We
therefore did not consider that she was depicted as any more suggestible
or less intelligent than the other patrons and we did not consider that
the ad was sexist towards either her or women in general.
While we considered that some viewers would find the ad distasteful,
we concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread
offence.
3. Not upheld
We noted that the ad had been given an ex-kids timing restriction,
which meant that it should not be broadcast in or around programmes
targeted at young children.
We noted that the ad did not contain any nudity or sex scenes and
considered that the ad was unlikely to be harmful to older children who
would understand the faking of a news broadcast, and the ruse in
general, to be fantastical.
However, we noted that the ad featured a passionate kiss and dealt
with vaguely adult themes such as deception and seduction, albeit in a
light-hearted, fantastical situation. We also considered that, while
there was no explicit content, the men's back-slapping and dancing at
the end of the ad could be seen as suggestive that something more than a
kiss had occurred. We therefore agreed that a restriction to keep the ad
away from times when younger children would be watching TV alone was
appropriate. We did not consider a later restriction was necessary.
|
| 18th July |
Fear and Distress... |
|
| |
ASA distressed by London Dungeon advert
Permalink |
Based on
article
from asa.org.uk
See
video from
vimeo.com
|
A
digital escalator panel poster for the Bloody Mary: Killer Queen
attraction at the London Dungeon, which appeared at London Underground
stations, showed a portrait of Queen Mary sitting still and passively.
Suddenly and quickly she turned to face the viewer and opened her mouth
wide in a threatening manner, as if she was screaming. At the same time,
her face morphed into that of a zombie-like character, with bloody
gashes, white flesh, rotting teeth and red eyes. She then resumed her
original passive position and her face returned to normal. On-screen
text stated New for 2010 Bloody Mary: Killer Queen At the London
Dungeon .... Issue
Four complainants objected that the ad was likely to frighten and
distress children, and was therefore inappropriate for display in an
untargeted medium. One of the complainants said his eight-year-old child
had been frightened by the ad. Another of the complainants said he had
seen the ad many times on London Underground escalators and it had
visibly shocked and upset several children.
ASA Assessment: Upheld
The ASA noted the ad was untargeted and could therefore be seen by
anyone. We considered that the London Underground attracted families and
the ad was likely to be seen by young children.
We considered that the morphing image, and the juxtaposition of a
calm face with a very scary one, were likely to startle and frighten
young children. We noted the switch between the passive and frightening
face occurred suddenly and unexpectedly, which could increase the shock
value. We also considered that when the face morphed into the scary
character, the bloody gashes, white flesh, rotting teeth, red eyes and
the threatening expression meant it was not suitable for young children
to see.
We were of the view that the ad seemed to be setting out to scare and
had overstepped the limit of acceptability in doing so because, although
not frightening for adults, the image was likely to be shocking to young
children and to cause them fear or distress without good reason. We
concluded that the ad was inappropriate for display in an untargeted
medium.
The ad breached CAP Code clause 9.1 (Fear and distress). The ad must
not appear again in its current form.
|
| 17th July |
Some Animals are More Equal than Others... |
|
| |
Pamela Anderson Peta advert banned from display in Montreal
Permalink full story: Peta Adverts...Animal activists with challenging adverts |
Based on
article from
news.sky.com
|
A
vegetarian advert featuring Pamela Anderson in a bikini has been banned
in Canada for being sexist.
Anderson features in a poster for People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (Peta) covered in butcher's labels such as rump, ribs
and breast.
The creators of the advert, which includes the slogan All Animals
Have The Same Parts, had been seeking approval for it to be
displayed in Montreal.
But Canadian officials rejected the banner, telling the animal rights
group in an email it went against the battle of equality between men
and women.
Anderson, who is a vegetarian and long-time Peta activist, hit out at
the puritanical decision. She was due to unveil the poster at
Montreal's Place Jaques-Cartier, but will now introduce it at a comedy
festival media conference.
She said: In a city that is known for
its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a
woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest
over the suffering of cows and chickens.
In some parts of the world, women are forced to
cover their whole bodies with burkas - is that next? I didn't think that
Canada would be so puritanical.
|
| 16th July |
ASA Stick the Knife In... |
|
| |
ASA censure Mafia Wars advert featuring knife
Permalink |
Based on
article
from asa.org.uk
|
An
internet ad on Facebook, for an online game, featured a photo of a
hooded man holding a large knife in front of him. Text stated From
Street Thug to Capo. Earn your street cred and be respected. Advance
from gangster to head boss in Mafia Wars. Play now.
An internet user challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because
it promoted knife use and condoned violent and anti-social behaviour.
Zynga Game Network said although the Mafia Wars game was focused on
fictional crime organisations, it did not depict violent crimes in the
game or any advertising, which was targeted at a male audience aged
between the ages of 18 and 55 years. They said the man holding the knife
in the ad reflected the content and theme of the game, as did the text,
but did not show any actual violence.
Facebook said the ad had been removed because it breached their
advertising guidelines, which prohibited images of weapons.
ASA Assessment: Upheld
The ASA considered that the picture of the hooded man looking
straight at the reader, while holding a large knife and posed as if
about to strike, was both aggressive and threatening. We noted the text
From Street Thug to Capo. Earn your street cred and be respected.
Advance from gangster to head boss in the Mafia Wars reflected the
content of the game, but considered that, together with the picture, the
text implied that carrying or using a knife was a way to earn respect
from a peer group and a means to achieve success in life. We concluded
that the ad glamorised and condoned violence and was irresponsible.
|
| 8th July |
The Sin of Easy Offence... |
|
| |
ASA dismiss whinge about lap dancing club advert
Permalink |
Based on
article from
asa.org.uk
|
A
poster for a lap dancing club outside a London underground station showed two
women in black underwear lying down with water raining down on them. Text stated
Indulge yourself in Sins & explore your Wicked Side. Issue
The complainant believed the ad was offensive and inappropriate for
display where it could be seen by children.
Sins said they were sorry that the ad had caused offence. They said they
had sought advice from the local Council on what they could display and
would ask for the ASAs approval on future advertising. They said the ad was
no longer appearing and a new ad was in its place. They sent a copy of the
new ad.
ASA Assessment: Not upheld
The ASA welcomed Sins decision to seek approval on future ads. Although
distasteful to some, we did not consider the ad was likely to cause serious
or widespread offence or harm to children.
|
| 5th July |
Off Their Trolley... |
|
| |
Russian bikini stewardess adverts wind up Australian air crews
Permalink |
Based on
article
from telegraph.co.uk
See
video from
youtube.com
|
A
new ad by a Russian airline featuring bikini-clad flight attendants washing
planes has taken raunchiness to another level.
The saucy clip promoting Moscow-based start-up airline Avianova shows
women stripping out of their stewardess uniforms and washing the company's
planes.
It is the latest airline to use sex as a selling point. Last week another
new airline, Spirit Airlines, came under fire for its raunchy ad. The
commercial, featuring scantily clad women with the slogan Check Out The
Oil On Our Beaches, was slammed for poking fun at the BP oil disaster.
The airline has since pulled the ad following widespread condemnation.
Based on
article from
jaunted.com
The Australian Flight Attendants Association is petitioning the
International Transport Federation to put a stop to Avianova-style travel
advertising, which they consider to be over-the-top demeaning to women.
The basic claim isn't so much an abstract argument about sexism in
advertising, although that's definitely included. The real issue is one of
potential sexual harassment. If male passengers are told and shown that
female flight attendants are sex objects, as the reasoning goes they're more
liable to treat female flight attendants as sex objects. The result is that
you have more drunks grabbing the thighs of more stewardesses in the middle
of more flights.
|
| 1st July |
Exposed Tits at the ASA... |
|
| |
Advert censor makes ludicrous claims about widespread and serious offence
Permalink |
Its about time that censors were made to account for their
exaggerated claims. The advert has run its course and the advertisers
have probably some idea about how many thousands of people saw them.
Surely 33 complaints can't be considered as evidence about serious or
widespread offence. It would be interesting to be informed of ASA's
estimates about how many people are offended by this advert based on
their surveys of public opinion. If they they have no estimate
available, why are they allowed to claim 'widespread offence'
Based on
article
from asa.org.uk
|
Two
posters, a Dazed and Confused magazine ad and a Grazia magazine ad for the
Diesel clothing company:
a. One poster featured an image of a woman standing outdoors in a bikini.
The woman was shown holding open her bikini bottoms with one hand and taking
a photograph of her genitals with the other. A lion was shown prowling
behind her and text stated SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE
BALLS. BE STUPID. DIESEL.
b. Another poster featured an image of a woman on a stepladder who was
lifting her top and exposing her breasts to a security camera. Text stated
SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS. BE STUPID. DIESEL.
c. A Dazed and Confused magazine ad featured an image of a woman on a
stepladder who was lifting her top and exposing her breasts to a security
camera. Text stated SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS.
BE STUPID. DIESEL.
d. An ad in Grazia magazine featured an image of a giant inflatable shape
with a smiley face on it. Two denim clad bottoms were shown poking through
holes in the face as if to form its eyes. Text stated ONLY THE STUPID CAN
BE TRULY BRILLIANT. BE STUPID. DIESEL.
33 complainants objected that the ads:
- were unsuitable to be seen by children;
- were offensive; and
- condoned or encouraged behaviour that was anti-social.
ASA Assessment: Complaints 1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that none of the ads showed full frontal nudity but
considered that posters (a) and (b) contained sexual undertones. We noted
ads (a) and (b) were posters and therefore appeared in an untargeted medium
that were difficult to avoid and were likely to be seen by children. We
considered the image of the woman in poster (a) was likely to cause serious
offence to many adults because it was clear that she was taking a photograph
of her genitalia and that the image of the woman exposing herself on the
ladder in poster ad (b) was likely to cause serious or widespread offence
because, although her breasts were only partially visible, the image showed
her exposing herself to a surveillance camera. We were further concerned
that the images of young women photographing their genitalia and exposing
their breasts to a camera in a public place were unsuitable to be displayed
on posters, an untargeted medium that was likely to be seen by children,
because of the overt sexualisation involved in the depicted acts.
We concluded that the content of the posters was likely to cause serious
or widespread offence to adults in an untargeted medium and was unsuitable
to be seen by children.
We noted magazine ads (c) and (d) were unlikely to be seen by children
because the publications were aimed specifically at adults. We also noted
the editorial content of those magazines included material that covered
sexual themes and considered that, in the context of the rest of the
magazines contents, the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread
offence to readers of Dazed and Confused and Grazia.
Posters (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible
advertising) and 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency).
ASA Assessment: Complaint 3. Upheld
We noted the image of the woman alone in a field with the lion in poster
ad (a) was surreal and stylized and considered that, because of the surreal
setting, the image was unlikely to be seen to condone or encourage people to
expose themselves in public. We therefore considered that the ad was
unlikely to encourage or condone anti-social behaviour.
However, we noted the image in poster ad (b) appeared realistic and
considered that the image portrayed socially challenging actions that might
be attractive to younger consumers who would be interested in the youthful
and edgy fashion range and might encourage behaviour that was anti-social or
irresponsible. Although magazine ad (c) portrayed the same image as poster
ad (b), we considered that readers of Dazed and Confused magazine would
interpret the ad within the context of the whole magazine and would see it
as a tongue-in-cheek comment on society rather than an encouragement of
anti-social behaviour.
Although we understood some readers might have found the image in
magazine ad (d) distasteful, we considered that most readers of Grazia
magazine would see the action as playful and, even if emulated, would be
unlikely to view it as anti-social. We concluded that magazine ad (d) did
not condone or encourage anti-social behaviour
Poster ad (b) breached CAP Code clause 11.1 (Violence and anti-social
behaviour).
|
| 30th June |
Butt Sensitive... |
|
| |
Bikini bus adverts banned in Manhattan's jewish districts
Permalink |
Based on
article
from wpix.com
|
The
makers of Georgi Vodka have staged a demonstration complete with bikinis, booze,
and a lawyer crying constitutional foul. They paid a handful of scantily clad
babes to rally outside a bus depot on Manhattan's West Side.
The purpose of the protest, says the vodka company, was to shame the
Manhattan Transport Authority (MTA) into reversing it's policy of
accommodation when religious groups request racy ads be removed from buses
in Hasidic Jewish neighborhoods.
At issue in this case are 2 ads featuring vodka bottles nestled next to
buxom butts covered by white bikini bottoms. Georgi Vodka distillers say the
ad is tasteful and the MTA ban is censorship and an infringement their First
Amendment rights.
The bikini ad ban applies to buses at three depots in Brooklyn which have
been accommodating the borough's Hasidic leaders for a decade now.
|
| 29th June |
Ads Given a Break... |
|
| |
R18s can be advertised on encrypted adult TV channels from 1st September
Permalink |
Based on
article
from babeshows.co.uk
See
New BCAP Code (broadcast) [pdf] from
cap.org.uk
|
Currently
adverts for porn products are banned from TV, including cable and satellite.
From 1st September 2010, the rules will loosen up a bit.
On radio, softcore products may be advertised between 10pm and 5:30am but
the adverts have to be centrally cleared
On TV, adverts for softcore/hardcore products are allowed only on encrypted
adult channels. The adverts themselves must never feature hardcore but may
be softcore between 10pm and 5:30am.
The published CAP rules seem to be a bit mis-numbered and mangled though:
Rules
30.1 Radio Central Copy Clearance – Advertisements
for products coming within the recognised character of pornography may be
broadcast only if they are centrally cleared.
30.2 Radio advertisements for R18-rated material
are not permitted.
30.3 Television only – Advertisements for products
coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind
mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only.
30.3.1 Television only – Advertisements must
not feature R18-rated material or its equivalent. That does not preclude
advertisements for R18-rated material or its equivalent behind mandatory
restricted access on adult entertainment channels.
30.3.2 Television only – Advertisements
permitted under rules 30.2 and 30.2.1 must not feature material that
comes within the recognised character of pornography before 10.00pm or
after 5.30am.
30.3.3 Radio advertisements for R18-rated
material are not permitted.
|
|
|