ASA Watch

An email, dated 21 October 2015, sent by pitchcare.com on behalf of Etesia UK Ltd, a horticultural equipment company, stated Meet the Etesia Calendar Girls at SALTEX! ...at the NEC Birmingham . The email included a picture of two pouting women wearing cut-off shorts, leaning on a motorised lawnmower. A second picture, linked to and taken from an embedded video in the email, showed the same women in their underwear with one woman holding a hedge trimmer. The embedded video, filmed at the calendar photo shoot, featured the two underwear-clad models posing on or using gardening equipment.

1. A complainant challenged whether the images in the email were offensive, because they were sexist and objectified women.

2. The ASA challenged whether the embedded video was offensive, because it was sexually suggestive and objectified women.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that recipients would understand that the calendar image and the video photo-shoot embedded in the email were included to publicise the models' appearance at the trade fair rather than the horticultural products sold by the advertiser. The email subject line and headline text in the body of the email both stated Meet the Etesia Calendar Girls at Saltex and included details of the trade fair. However, although the images in the email were a reasonable representation of the calendar being advertised, we nonetheless considered that some recipients were unlikely to expect such images in a marketing communication from a horticultural equipment company.

We noted the women in the first picture were wearing revealing cut-off shorts, with their bottoms pushed out and pouting directly at the camera. Although the pose was not overtly sexual, we considered that it was likely to be seen as sexually suggestive. The second picture showed the women in revealing lace underwear, with one woman holding a hedge trimmer, and text next to it stated See a 'behind-the-scenes' video of the photo shoot using the link here ... . Although the context of the image was clear, we nonetheless considered that showing the women in their underwear while using gardening equipment for no other reason than a calendar shoot, presented the women as sexual objects.

We acknowledged that the images were relevant to both the nature of the calendar and the models' appearance at the trade fair, but considered that they were likely to be seen as objectifying women and were therefore sexist. For those reasons, we concluded that the email was likely to cause serious offence to some recipients.

2. Upheld

We acknowledged that the embedded video was filmed at the calendar photo shoot and was included in the email to promote the opportunity to meet the models at the trade fair, but considered that the scantily clad models had no relevance to the advertiser's products featured in the video.

The women were shown posing on or near horticultural equipment in either their underwear or bikinis, or with their tops removed, although still wearing bras. Two scenes featured the women, viewed side on, individually sitting on a lawn mower. They were wearing tops, high heel shoes and brief underpants, which revealed their buttocks. The camera zoomed into the buttock area before moving upwards. The women, both wearing skimpy underwear, appeared together on the lawn mower, one sitting with the other standing behind her, which emphasised the standing model's groin area, before the camera panned out. Towards the end of the video one of the models was briefly seen adjusting her breasts and at the end of the video the women blew kisses at the camera.

We considered that the overall impression created by the video was that it was sexual in tone with the women portrayed as sexual images and their physical features used to draw attention to the products. We considered that the video was likely to be seen as objectifying, and therefore demeaning to, women. We concluded that, because the video was sexually suggestive and degrading to women, it was likely to cause serious offence to some recipients.

The email must not appear again in its current form. We told Etesia UK Ltd to ensure their ads did not cause serious offence.

Advert Censor ASA and CAP (who write the rules) have published their Annual Report covering 2015. They issued the following press release:

ASA and CAP Annual Report 2015: The balance is shifting 26 May 2016

Figures published today [Thursday 26 May] show the changing landscape of advertising regulation continues to be dominated by online ads, with the number of internet cases standing at over double those of the second most prolific medium, TV (8,633 compared to 3,920). Meanwhile, the mass-viewing nature of TV ensured that ads on the box generated the greatest number of individual complaints from consumers (11,611), taking back the top spot from the Internet.

The league table was released today as part of our and the Committee of Advertising Practice's (CAP's) annual report. The report also shows how advertising regulation itself is changing, owing to a rebalancing from complaints-led work towards more proactive interventions in markets where consumers are facing harm. Examples include a new approach to broadband pricing, sector-wide advice for osteopaths on how to advertise responsibly, and new guidance for vloggers on the disclosure of paid-for endorsements.

Consequently, while the number of consumer complaints about ads declined by 7.9% to 29,554, 2015 was a record year in terms of the number of ads that were changed or withdrawn as a result of our regulation (4,584). While this figure has risen 32% since 2014, it still represents only a small proportion of the overall advertising landscape -- data also published today suggests fewer members of the public saw problem ads in 2015 - 17%, down from 22% in 2013.

The report also shows which sectors and media received the most complaints during 2015. Notably, complaints about ads on public transport increased 153% - primarily owing to the high-profile and controversial Are you beach body ready? ad.

The most complained about sector was Leisure (films, DVDs, computer games, gambling), with 3,932 complaints about 2,530 cases. Meanwhile, the financial sector saw a 78% rise in complaints, driven primarily by the Moneysupermarket.com ad featuring Dancing Dave , which was the most complained about ad of 2015.

Conversely, the alcohol sector saw complaints decline by 37% to just 118 about 90 ads.

Guy Parker, Chief Executive of the ASA said:

The ASA's ambition is to make every UK ad a responsible ad and recent changes show how our regulation is becoming more proactive and having more impact. Alongside our important work resolving consumer complaints, we've taken proactive action in areas that make the biggest difference for the public. As well as the record number of ads changed or withdrawn, the volume of our compliance work has trebled to almost 5,500 cases.

The figures we've published today also show how protecting consumers, particularly children, online continues to be an urgent priority.

In 2016, we'll be implementing changes to broadband pricing, as well as examining gender discrimination in ads, and exploring ways to reduce children's exposure to ads for age-restricted products in social media.

Our call for evidence: Gender stereotyping in ads 28 April 2016

In recent years, there has been increasing political and public debate on equality issues. The objectification and sexualisation of women in ads, presenting an idealised or unrealistic body image, the mocking of women and men in non-stereotypical roles, the reinforcement of stereotyped views of gender roles, and gender-specific marketing to children are all issues that have gained considerable public interest.

As a proactive regulator, we want to find out more about these issues. Consequently, we will be doing three things: examining evidence on gender stereotyping in ads, seeking views from a range of stakeholders, and commissioning our own research into public opinion.

At this stage we are being open-minded about what stakeholders and research tell us about gender stereotyping in ads and the impact of such advertising, which will shape the project as we move forward. In particular, we are keen for people and organisations to send us any research they have on this issue. Evidence can be sent to us at gender@asa.org.uk.

The project will report on whether we're getting it right on gender stereotyping in ads. If the evidence suggests a change in regulation is merited we will set out the best way to achieve it.

Chief Executive of the ASA, Guy Parker, said:

We're serious about making sure we're alive to changing attitudes and behaviours. That's why we've already been taking action to ban ads that we believe reinforce gender stereotypes and are likely to cause serious and widespread offence, or harm.

And that's also why we want to engage further with a wide range of stakeholders on the effect of gender stereotyping on society, including through our 'call for evidence'.

I look forward to hearing from stakeholders as this important work progresses.

Still images that appeared at the end of a video for the fashion brand Guccio Gucci SpA, seen on www.thetimes.co.uk on 15 December 2015, featured several models dancing to a soundtrack. The final part of the ad featured several photos of individual models. Image (a) featured a woman leaning with her back to a wall and was wearing a long dress which covered her body from the neck down to her mid-calves including her arms. Image (b) featured another model who was sitting on a sofa. She was wearing a high necked jacket and a skirt which covered her down to her mid-thighs.

A complainant, who believed the featured models appeared unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible.

Guccio Gucci SpA said that the ads were part of a video that portrayed a dance party and was aimed at an older, sophisticated audience. They noted that the target population of The Times, where the ad appeared, had an adult and mature readership. They said it was, to some extent, a subjective issue as to whether a model looked unhealthily thin. which they considered was not the case for either of the women identified by the complainant. They believed both models had slim builds. but were not depicted in a way that could be interpreted as unhealthily thin. For example, nowhere in the ads were any models' bones visible, their makeup was natural rather than heavy (which might have accentuated the impression of thinness), lighting was uniform and warm to ensure there were no hollows caused by shadows and their clothes were not revealing. The visual parts of their bodies appeared toned and slim.

ASA Assessment; Complaint upheld

The ASA noted that the model seated on the sofa wore a short skirt which showed her legs up to her mid thighs. We noted that her legs, while slim, appeared to be generally in proportion with the rest of her body which was not excessively slender or underweight -- for example, her knee and ankle bones were not overly noticeable. We therefore considered that the model did not appear to be unhealthily thin.

We noted that the model leaning against the wall was wearing a long dress so that only her lower legs, ankles, neck and head were visible. We considered that her torso and arms were quite slender and appeared to be out of proportion with her head and lower body. Further, her pose elongated her torso and accentuated her waist so that it appeared to be very small. We also considered that her sombre facial expression and dark make up, particularly around her eyes, made her face look gaunt. For those reasons, we considered that the model leaning against the wall appeared to be unhealthily thin in the image, and therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Guccio Gucci SpA to ensure that the images in their ads were prepared responsibly.