Melon Farmers Original Version

Advertising News


Latest

 2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   Latest 

 

Self restraint...

Betting and gaming trade association announces further age restrictions on the placement of internet advertising


Link Here3rd September 2020
The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) is the trade association for betting and gaming, representing betting shops, online gaming businesses and casinos. The association has announced that it will be restricting internet advertising to websites that can prove that they are targeting over 18s or else are targeting over 25s (without so much proof required). The association announced:

Tough new measures aimed at further preventing under-18s from seeing gambling adverts online have been unveiled by the Betting and Gaming Council.

The standards body, which represents the regulated betting industry excluding the National Lottery, unveiled the crackdown as it published the Sixth Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising.

In future, BGC members must ensure that all sponsored or paid for social media adverts must be targeted at consumers aged 25 and over unless the website can prove its adverts can be precisely targeted at over 18s.

The new code also includes a requirement that gambling ads appearing on search engines must make clear that they are for those aged 18 and over. In addition, the adverts themselves must also include safer gambling messages.

YouTube users will also have to use age-verified accounts before they can view gambling ads, guaranteeing that they cannot be seen by under-18s. And BGC members will have to post frequent responsible gambling messages on their Twitter accounts.

The new code, which will come into force on 1 October, is the latest example of the BGC's determination to drive up standards within the betting and gaming industry.

Other measures include the whistle to whistle ban on TV gambling adverts, a requirement for 20% of all TV and radio ads to be safer gambling messaging, cooling off periods on gaming machines, encouraging deposit limits, new ID and age verification checks and massively increasing funding for research, education and treatment.

 

 

Shown the red flag...

The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland bans Tampax advert


Link Here31st July 2020
An ad for tampons has been banned in Ireland for supposedly causing widespread offence.

The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI) has advised that Tampax's Tampons and Tea ad should not air again in the same format, after receiving 84 complaints.

The ad saw a TV presenter in a chat show set-up asking the audience: Tell me, how many of you ever feel your tampon? After her guest raises her hand, she says: You shouldn't. It might mean your tampon isn't in far enough. You've gotta get 'em up there, girls.

A number of complainants argued that the ad was demeaning to women because it suggested that women did not know how to use the tampons or read the instructions. Complaints of sexual innuendo argued that the phrase get 'em up there, girls had sexual connotations and that the Tampax ad was sexualising the wearing of tampons, while other complaints claimed the ad was over-descriptive, inappropriately expressed and with excessive detail.

The ASAI did not uphold complaints that the ad demeaned women, contained sexual innuendo or was unsuitable for children.  However, they did uphold the complaints of general offence.

 

 

Getting the hump...

155 people whinge about a jokey Lynx advert during Britain's Got Talent


Link Here6th May 2020

ITV's Britain's Got Talent earned 155 complaints to the advert censor, ASA, over a Lynx advert that features a dry humping squirrel.

During Saturday's May 2 show the broadcaster aired an ad for Lynx Africa featuring a jokey coda of CGI squirrel humping a can of the bodyspray. It was aired 15 minute before the watershed.

A spokesperson for the Advertising Standards Authority told Metro:

We [had] 155 complaints about the Lynx TV ad featuring a squirrel behaving amorously with a deodorant can. The general nature of the complaints is that the ad is offensive, is inappropriately scheduled and is unsuitable for children.

No decision has been made on whether there are grounds for an investigation.

 

 

Sexy Honey Birdette advert cleared...

The Australian advert censor is not so easily offended as the UK counterpart


Link Here4th May 2020

This Instagram advertisement features a black and white image of a woman from behind. She is standing with her hands on her hips and is wearing a garter belt. Her buttocks are exposed. The caption with the image states, The ultimate bondage babe, KUKURO, selling fast online

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:

This is a sexualised, sexually objectifying image of a woman to sell a product. The woman's face is not shown, just a sexualised representation of her body. Her body and sexual appeal are therefore treated as representing her whole self and defining her worth. I object to this image because images that sexualise and objectify women, and determine a woman's value based on her sexual appeal and physical attractiveness.

The Panel noted the complainant's concern that the advertisement sexualises and objectifies the woman pictured. The Panel viewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser did not respond.

The Panel considered whether the advertisement was in breach of Section 2.2 of the Code. Section 2.2 of the Code states:

Advertising or marketing communications should not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative or degrading of any individual or group of people.

The Panel noted the complainant's concern that the advertisement sexually objectifies women by depicting a woman without showing her face, and that therefore her body and sexual appeal are treated as defining her worth.

The Panel first considered whether the advertisement used sexual appeal. The Panel considered the woman is depicted from behind wearing only a g-string and suspenders. The Panel considered that the advertisement did depict sexual appeal.

The Panel then considered whether the advertisement used sexual appeal in a manner that was exploitative of an individual or group of people. The Panel considered that it was clear from the advertisement that the product for sale was the lingerie, not the woman, and that the woman was not depicted as an object or commodity. The Panel noted that the woman's entire body is depicted and that the Wonder Woman pose is a position of power. The Panel considered that the advertisement is promoting the brand Honey Birdette as well as the lingerie, and that the depiction of the woman and the focus on her body is relevant to a brand which makes products for the female body and promotes the empowerment of women.

The Panel considered that the depiction of the woman without her face shown was not an attempt to suggest that she is an object or available for purchase, but rather was a creative choice relating to the theme and style of the photograph. The Panel considered that some members of the community may consider the depiction of a woman without her face shown, focusing instead on the lingerie being promoted, to be suggesting her worth is related to her body only. However the Panel considered that most members of the community would not have this interpretation of the advertisement, rather that is is portraying a lingerie product in a sexualised manner. Overall the Panel considered that the advertisement did not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative of the woman.

The Panel then considered whether the advertisement used sexual appeal in a manner that was degrading of an individual or group of people. The Panel considered that the woman is depicted in a powerful pose, and is standing with her shoulders back and head held high. The Panel noted that the image was sexualised with the depiction of the woman also showing her buttocks and between her legs from behind. However the Panel considered that the depiction of a woman wearing sexualised lingerie in this promotion for that style of lingerie was not a depiction which lowered the woman in character or quality. Overall the Panel considered that the advertisement did not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is degrading of the woman.

The Panel determined that the advertisement did not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is


 2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   2020   Latest 


 


 
TV  

Movies

Games

Internet
Advertising

Technology

Gambling

Food+Drink
Books

Music

Art

Stage

melonfarmers icon

Home

Top

Index

Links

Shop
 

UK

World

Media

Nutters

Liberty
 

Film Cuts

Cutting Edge

Information

Sex News

Sex Sells
 


Adult Store Reviews

Adult DVD & VoD

Adult Online Stores

New Releases/Offers

Latest Reviews

FAQ: Porn Legality

Sex Shops List

Lap Dancing List

Satellite X List

Sex Machines List

John Thomas Toys