Honey Birdette and shopping centre management continues to ignore Ad Standards

As usual Honey Birdette ignores the ruling; continues violating advertising standards

Will this decision be enforced? Of course not

How many people signed off on this?

Earlier this year, Ad Standards announced long awaited changes to the AANA Code of Ethics regarding the use of sexual appeal in advertising.

We welcomed the updated code as a step in the right direction, hoping that the change would result in more complaints against sexist and sexually exploitative advertising being upheld. We continue to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the updated code to determine whether there has been any meaningful change in the advertising content that is permitted. Here is the latest example we’ve come across.

NGU Real Estate Ad

Complaints against NGU Real Estate have been upheld by Ad Standards. The ad for the Brisbane company was dubbed sexist, objectifying and dehumanising by complainants.

The real estate company’s three minute YouTube video showed bikini clad women, often headless or faceless, in a multi-million-dollar mansion, partying on a boat and swimming in a pool. The video featured gratuitous slow-motion shots lingering on specific body parts as well as sexual innuendo between women, with one woman suggestively sucking on her finger.

A still image from the video.

Ad Standards considered possible breaches of the following industry codes.

AANA Code of Ethics, Section 2.1:  Advertising or Marketing Communication shall not portray people or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, mental illness or political belief.

The advertiser, NGU Real Estate, claimed the sexist ad did not discriminate against women because “there are no acts of inequity, bigotry or intolerance against women”, adding that the models are portrayed “in a position of power and confidence” as a justification for sexually exploiting women’s bodies and sexuality for profit.  Ad Standards agreed with the advertiser’s assessment:

“The Panel noted that the women in the advertisement were depicted as comfortable and confident and did not appear to be in distress or at the property against their will.”

Ad Standards determined the advertisement did not breach Section 2.1 of the Code.

AANA Code of Ethics, Section 2.2: Advertising or Marketing Communication shall not employ sexual appeal: (a) where images of Minors, or people who appear to be Minors, are used; or (b) in a manner which is exploitative or degrading of any individual or group of people.

The Panel referred to a specific scene which shows “women as being similar to cattle” and considered that this particular scene in the advertisement did employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative of women by portraying women as commodities or objects to possess.

The Panel found that the ad was in breach of Section 2.2 of the code.

AANA Code of Ethics, Section 2.4: Advertising or Marketing Communication shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience.

According to the case report:

“The Panel considered that there is sexual innuendo in the advertisement in the form of licking/sucking fingers and trailing fingers along shoulders but that this is only innuendo.

“The Panel noted that there is no actual nudity depicted in this advertisement. The Panel considered that the women in the advertisement are scantily clad, but that there were no nipples or genitals visible.”

The Panel found that the ad was not in breach of Section 2.4 of the code.

Ad standards is still failing women

While in this case, the complaints were upheld, it is clear that Ad Standards does not understand the nature of sexual objectification or why it is harmful. Treating women as sexualised props and defining women by their sexual appeal harms women as a whole, even if advertisers portray them as confident sexualised props. Sexual objectification may occur with or without nudity, with or without the presence of visible nipples or genitals. Ad Standards ongoing failure to grasp such concepts is alarming and indicates the current system is severely lacking.

What’s more, the many weaknesses in the code embolden advertisers to disregard Ad Standards rulings, as outlined in the final comments by NGU Real Estate:

Legal counsel advice confirms the following:

- NGU is not required by law to remove the ad or any part of the ad.

- NGU voluntarily elected to remove the instances of concern identified by the panel

and the complainant.

- The advertising standards and code are guidelines.

- Advertising is self-regulated.

- NGU did not act unlawfully.

While the revision to Section 2.2 of the AANA Code of Ethics is a step forward, we still have a long way to go.

See also:

25 Reasons Why Ad Industry Self-Regulation is a Disaster

Ad watchdog in Australia a dismal failure – ASB “failing to protect children”, says President of Australian Medical Association

Why Australia Should Follow France's Lead on 'Degrading' Sexist Advertising

The following is a complaint to Ad Standards we received from a supporter. The complaint was made in response to a Bras N Things advertisement featuring a woman wearing nothing but lacy panties and in bold red font, the words “THE TAKE IT ALL OFF SALE.”

Kenneth Thor, the father behind the petition calling for an end to porn-style Honey Birdette advertisements in Westfield shopping centres, is continuing to keep up the pressure on Scentre Group.

After years of Collective Shout campaigning, the Advertising Standards Board has announced long awaited changes to the AANA Code of Ethics regarding the use of sexual appeal in advertising.

Figure 1: An example of sexually exploitative advertising permitted in public spaces under the current system.

Previously, under section 2.2 of the code, advertisements were in breach if they were found to be both exploitative and degrading. An advertisement deemed simply exploitative was not in breach. From March, updates to the code mean the use of sexual appeal in advertising cannot be exploitative or degrading.

Collective Shout welcomes this revision of the code. While this is a positive step, there is much more still to be done in order to effectively regulate sexist and sexually objectifying advertising.

25 Reasons Why Ad Industry Self-Regulation is a Disaster

While the ASB claims most companies comply with advertising codes and rulings, we’ve spent years documenting and exposing serial offenders such as Honey Birdette, UltraTune and Wicked Campers - companies who continually exploit the weaknesses in the current system of self-regulation to promote their products and services. There is still a long way to go, and we’re not backing down any time soon.

Read the ASB’s media release in full.

See also:

Why is the advertising industry still promoting violence against women?

Collective Shout community responds to ASB failures

Ad watchdog in Australia a dismal failure – ASB “failing to protect children”, says President of Australian Medical Association

Honey Birdette sexploitation highlights Ad Standards Board incompetence. 

There are some things in life that are certain – Boxing Day sales, stocktake sales, and now, shockingly sexist Ultra Tune ads.

True to form, three free-to-air Ultra Tune advertisements have made the ASB’s 2017 most-complained-about ad list so far. Ultra Tune ads top the list with 357 complaints.