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

New on our list of corporations that have exploited women are Volley with their recent #Grassroots campaign. Volley have been a popular shoe company for decades, but for some reason they got lazy and decided they were going to try the 'sex sells' method of advertising (which we know doesn't actually lead to more sales as detailed here).

Lingerie retailer Bras'N'Things has been forced to discontinue a Playboy video ad due to its overtly explicit content.

While many associate Playboy simply with its branded items or magazine, Playboy Enterprises own various adult TV channels and websites, broadcasting brutal, hardcore pornography. Retailers that stock Playboy branded products are helping Playboy to produce and distribute content that objectifies and degrades women.

Consumers lodged complaints with the Advertising Standards Board after being exposed to the sexualised content which was playing on TV screens in the retailer’s front windows in full view of passers by including children.

We've spent years dealing with the Advertising Standards Board, and in this time, we've seen the many flaws in the system- one we argue needs a complete upheaval. Of course, the industry likes things exactly the way they are. As the Australia Institute said in the Letting Children Be Children report, "… advertisers also have an interest in avoiding government scrutiny that may lead to stronger regulation of advertising in the interests of the general public…Self-regulation is a strategy that enables the industry to avoid such scrutiny."

We've made a list of flaws in the current system, and narrowed it down to 25. 

Honey Birdette, the sex shop masquerading as a high end lingerie store, continues to blatantly disregard rulings from the Advertising Standards Board in regards to their porn-themed advertising.

Despite the Advertising Standards Board upholding complaints for various large store front posters featuring soft-core porn imagery, including one showing a woman with tape over her nipples, Honey Birdette have highlighted one of the gaping holes in the system of ad industry regulation by refusing to comply with ASB rulings.

So it's no great surprise they've done it again- defiantly.