Family mall sex store racks up new violations for 'exploitative' and 'overtly sexual' ads
*Content warning (Note: These larger-than-life shop window ads were shown to children in family shopping centres across the country)
Honey Birdette was found in breach of advertising Code of Ethics nine times in a single month. It's a new record for the Playboy-owned and Westfield resident sex store chain.
In October, Ad Standards reviewed complaints against 17 different Honey Birdette shop window and social media ads. The self regulator sided with community members in just over half of the cases, dismissing complaints in eight instances.
Complaints upheld
The nine ads Ad Standards upheld complaints against included bondage and fetish themed 'Pony', two versions of 'Anita' and 'Kukuro Red'. Read more here.
The remaining upheld complaints were recorded by Ad Standards as follows (click Case Numbers to read reports):
A community member described the ad and objections to it:
This ad depicts a naked woman with what appears to be a stocking over her head. This is chilling dehumanisation of a woman, whose face is significantly obscured while her naked body is presented. The ad appears to be suggestive of suffocation, normalising and eroticising a lethal form of violence against women. As a survivor myself, it is distressing to see such a disturbing suggestion of violence against women.
The Ad Standards Community Panel concluded that the ad was exploitative (and therefore breached ad Code of Ethics Section 2.2) but not degrading, and (in our opinion, against all sensibility) did not depict or suggest violence (it's almost like the Community Panel has ZERO understanding of advertising, or the messaging implied by images!). Regarding the issues of sex, sexuality and nudity, the Panel concluded that the ad "was not inappropriate when displayed on the advertiser’s own social media channel which has a targeted adult audience of followers."
Ad Standards gives green light to batch of Honey Birdette's pornified ads
Ad Standards dismissed community members' complaints against six larger-than-life Honey Birdette porn and BDSM themed shop window ads. Read the Case Reports here.
The Panel also dismissed complaints against two degrading Honey Birdette ads featured on 13+ social media platforms Facebook and Instagram.
A concerned Facebook user objected to Honey Birdette's post featuring images depicting "a naked woman in a sheer body stocking, in demeaning poses (on all fours, lying on the ground)":
The woman's head and face are obscured, and she is represented as naked body posed ready for sexual use. These type of blatantly misogynistic images normalise and encourage the dehumanisation of women as things to be sexually used and abused by men. As rates of male violence against women continue to rise, unethical companies should not be permitted to objectify, degrade and dehumanise women for profit. These images harm women and girls and contribute to a culture where violence against us is tolerated.
Despite these legitimate objections, Ad Standards concluded that the post on the 13+ social media platforms
- did NOT depict the woman as an object or commodity
- did NOT employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative of the woman
- was NOT a depiction which lowered the woman in character or quality
- did NOT employ sexual appeal in a manner which is degrading to the woman
The Case Report including the following statement from a complainant:
The ad sexually objectifies women by pairing a sexualised image of a model with the words "A ride to remember", suggesting she might be the "ride" (i.e. available for men's sexual use). Portraying women as constantly willing and available for sex is sexist, it objectifies women and undermines gender equality.
Honey Birdette's use of double entendre - implying women, like horses, are for riding - was apparently lost on Ad Standards.
What Ad Standards said
A minority of the Panel considered the woman is depicted in fetish gear which include harnesses, and this in combination with the caption "ride to remember [cowboy emoji], the ways to play in PONY are endless..." is comparing the woman to a horse and suggesting she is available to be ridden. However, the majority of the Panel noted that there was a horse visible in the image and the most likely interpretation is that the phrase “a ride to remember” is in reference to the horse and not the woman. The Panel considered that the advertisement does not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative of the woman.
(Yep, they really said this.)
In the inconsistent and baseless decision making process used by Ad Standards, ad rulings are borne out of majority Panel member opinion. In this case, Panel member/s who saw Honey Birdette's dehumanising and objectifying message for what it were overruled. Read more about the failings of self regulated advertising here.
Regarding the issue of 'sex, sexuality and nudity', Ad Standards claimed that "the audience for this advertisement would be predominately adult and would be people familiar with the products available at Honey Birdette and its style of advertising on social media" and dismissed the complaint.
"What now?" Community members on a "merry-go-round-of-doom"
Some of our supporters let us know their complaints were upheld, and rightly asked, "What happens now?" We know: A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y N-O-T-H-I-N-G. But we enouraged them to ask Ad Standards that question.
We sent our own inquiries to Ad Standards, after shopping centre companies we contacted about Honey Birdette's shop window ads referred us to Ad Standards! Here's what we said:
After contacting multiple shopping centre companies [we] have heard back from a few who deferred [us] to the "Ad Standards Bureau" who "regulate advertising". They said that this is the position of the Shopping Centre Council of Australia. It seems like they don't actually understand how the process works though, or that:
- Ad Standards has no capacity to issue rulings within timeframes meaningful to Honey Birdette (their campaigns change far more quickly than the Panel reviews and rules on complaints, so they beat the rulings every time by simply swapping old Code of Ethics-violating ads with new ones);
- Ad Standards has no capacity to enforce their rulings;
- Ad Standards has no capacity to penalise repeat offenders like Honey Birdette; and
- Ad Standards has no capacity to stop Honey Birdette from displaying more and more ads which violate ad Code.
[We] wonder if Ad Standards could communicate with SCCA and its members to explain this, so they understand that deferring to Ad Standards regarding Honey Birdette's porn style ads is ineffectual, and resolution requires direct action from them as lessors?
We'll let you know if we hear back.
Click HERE to sign the petition calling on CEOs to stop allowing Honey Birdette's porn style ads in their family friendly shopping centres.
Add your comment