During the coverage of the Australian Open this year, viewers were forced to sit through a series of monotonous and tiresome advertisements that ranged from banking adverts to whitewashed Australian television drama. Though tedious and boring, for the most part I was unfazed by them. There was one commercial, however, that I found not only irritating, but highly offensive and infuriating. It came from Ultra Tune.

In this advertisement (seen here), we see two women driving a car, and as they approach a set of traffic lights, the muffler detaches from their vehicle and falls to the road before catching fire. The two women scream and jump out of the car. One of them uses their phone to contact Ultra Tune, and the other fumbles with a fire extinguisher. Both the women then feel it would be a great idea to use using the fire extinguisher on each other, and we get close-up shots of their breasts and bottoms. The footage slows down to focus on these body parts, and the women start screaming again and run from the car as it explodes, spraying oil all over them.

If you are looking for legal services in the Brisbane area you may want to give Logan Law a miss. Their sexist advertising has lead to complaints to the Advertising Standards Board, who have subsequently dismissed the complaints. (Probably because there is nothing in the code of ethics to address sexism) 

One of their advertisements is a Faceboook post for legal services offered by Logan Law using innuendos relating to having a vehicle hit another vehicle from behind with hashtags such as "#steveo #hollyweed #loganlaw #smashedhardfrombehind #coppedoneinthebumper #beenrearendedlately #penetratingbrisbane #takenoneinthetailpipe".

The complainant said: 

The majority of Logan Law's advertising has extreme sexual connotations and this is not limited to their Facebook posts, this also includes billboards seen around Brisbane which are promoted in an incredibly unprofessional manner. I find their advertising highly inappropriate.

The Board noted the advertised product is clothing and considered that it was not exploitative to use a woman wearing the advertised product. The Board noted that the woman is shown to lift her top up and expose her stomach. The Board noted the complainant’s concern that by showing a woman in the act of undressing the advertisement presents the woman as a sexual object.

The Board noted that the tagline, which features across each image and covers the woman’s torso, says “Everything 50-70% off” and considered that the woman’s partial removal of her clothing is a physical demonstration of this rather than a suggestion that the woman is a stripper.

The Board acknowledged that some members of the community would prefer that female models were not used to advertise clothing in this manner but considered that in the context of a clothing sale the images of the woman lifting her top to reveal a naked stomach and back were not exploitative and/or degrading of this, or any other, woman.

Advertising code of ethics must change!

Sign the petition to change advertising standards here. 

The Board noted that in order to be in breach of this section of the Code the image would need to use sexual appeal in a manner that is both exploitative and degrading.

The Board noted the advertised product is lingerie and considered that the pose of the woman is not necessary to promote the product and in the Board’s view this depiction of a woman bending slightly to look in a mirror so that her bottom is towards the viewer is exploitative.

The Board noted that the woman in the advertisement is viewed from behind as she leans in towards a mirror on a dressing table and considered that while only the bottom half of her head is visible in the Board’s view the focus is on the lingerie and the overall image is not degrading to this, or any other, woman.

The following ads were all given the green light by the Advertising Standards Board. Collective Shout is calling for an advertising industry overhaul. Sign the petition here. 

The Advertising Standards Board is made up of 20 people from across Australia with various professional backgrounds, however they didn't quite see eye to eye when determining whether the latest Honey Birdette posters were in breach of the code. 

These complaints were all subsequently dismissed.

I was recently scrolling through social media when a disturbing sponsored ad showed up in my feed. It instantly didn't sit right with me. Women's body parts were featured coming out of holes in the wall, hands, feet, arms and legs with accessories and clothing dangling off them. There were no heads, no faces, just limbs. 

“The Board noted the images featuring a topless model next to an elephant. . . . and considered that the model’s nipples are not visible and while there is no need for the model to be topless this is not of itself a breach of the Code.”

The final decision came down to whether a finger hooked in the side of a g-string was “part of the woman’s pose” or intended to look like she's pulling them down

Man is fully clothed, woman wears body paint and yet “The Board noted that the woman’s nipples are sufficiently covered by body paint . . .”