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.

Content Warning: Some content including in this post may be distressing, but it is content the ASB is promoting to your children.

If an adult gave your child a Hustler magazine, what would you do? Perhaps contacting the police might be an appropriate response.

But what if the adult was the Advertising Standards Board, and the pornographic magazine was the address for a hardcore porn website, complete with prostitution services featuring young women engaging in live sex shows, including being penetrated with objects?

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.

We exposed Shade Sunscreen for using sexually objectifying women to advertise their products. Shade Sunscreen’s social media was dominated by sexualised images of women’s bodies and body parts. Following a single complaint, all of their Australian social media sites were suddenly taken down. 

“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 . . .”

"Sexism is not always obviously violent, exploitative or degrading. It can be unintended or disguised innocently as humour, but it is always insidious, offensive to and exclusionary of its victims."

Sign the petition

In Australia we have a self regulatory advertising system. This system is in place to (supposedly) ensure that "advertisements and other forms of marketing communications are legal, decent, honest and truthful and that they have been prepared with a sense of obligation to the consumer and society and a sense of fairness and responsibility to competitors."

As part of this system a 'code of ethics' was drawn up. Each time a complaint is made the Advertising Standards Board goes back to this code to see if the ad is in breach of one or more of the codes. But how effective can the code of ethics be when it completely ignores sexism?