London Mayor blocks "cure your gayness" transit campaign

The above king board was supposed to run on several buses in London, England, next week. That is, until the city's mayor intervened.

According to the Guardian, the ad by "Christian" organization Core Issues was blocked by London Mayor Boris Johnson in his capacity as Chair of Transport for London.

In case you haven't noticed, it parodies the popular human rights slogan, "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

He defeated the frickin' Balrog, so you may want to heed him.

Surprisingly, the Advertising Standards Authority, which bans every ad that upsets even a couple of people, cleared the creative in advance.

"We went through the correct channels and we were encouraged by the bus company to go through their procedures," Core Issues Trust leader Mike Davidson told the press.

But the Conservative Mayor would have none of it. "London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance," he said. "It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses."

Core Issues is crying "censorship" which is their prerogative. But assuming homosexuality is something you're born into, these ads as bad as promoting programmes to teach people to stop being Swedish, or stop being female.

Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate, is gay. He made light of the situation.

"As mayor I want to make London a place that is welcoming to all people," he quipped, "including Christians."

ASA okays furry fandom SIMS ad for UK

"Are you an animal person? Well, not like me cos most people are made up entirely of person. And if you're a person person, then you'd be missing out on the duality of life. With the Sims 3 Pets you can have a pet or be a pet. You can play both ways. So, go on, experiment. Chase some tail. Play with life".

According to BoingBoing, Britain's Advertising Standards Authority (who always make for good blog) received a complaint about the sexualized nature of this ad, featuring both people and animals (as well as people as animals):



From the ASA site:

"A TV ad, for a console game, included an animated character that had a human body and a dog's head. It stated "Are you an animal person? Well, not like me cos most people are made up entirely of person. And if you're a person person, then you'd be missing out on the duality of life. With the Sims 3 Pets you can have a pet or be a pet. You can play both ways. So, go on, experiment. Chase some tail. Play with life". The ad also included animated scenes of a man playing a guitar surrounded by animals and other people. He was also shown in a bath and then appeared about to kiss a woman on a bed."

Issue

1. Some of the complainants challenged whether the ad, in particular the scene with the couple on a bed, was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

2. Most of the complainants challenged whether the ad, in particular the scene with the couple on a bed, was suitable to be broadcast when children might be watching.

...


Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered the presentation of the ad was such that it was clear that it was for a videogame and that the scenarios shown were not a reflection of real life. We acknowledged some viewers might find the content of the ad, in particular the scene of the couple on the bed, distasteful but considered most viewers were likely to interpret it as being light hearted and mildly suggestive, rather than as being overtly sexual. We therefore concluded that it was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We considered the scene of the couple on the bed was mildly suggestive but noted it was brief and that although they appeared about to kiss, kissing did not take place. We considered the ad did not include anything that was likely to cause harm or distress to children or was otherwise unsuitable for them. We therefore concluded that the ad did not breach the Code.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 32.3 (Scheduling of television and radio advertisements) but did not find it in breach."

So go ahead, Britons! Get your yiff on...

Steel Panther poster banned in UK for sexy/sexist imagery

Spinal Tap would be so proud.



Indeed. Steel Panther are yet another parody band who do the material so well that people take it seriously. At least that's what happened when this outrageously over-the-top poster appeared in the UK last fall.

The Guardian reports that the ASA, the UK's notoriously ninny ad standards enforcer, did not accept the argument that that the ads were meant to "poke fun at the ridiculousness of the attitude to women, outfits and music in that [1980s] era".

Here's the ruling in full:

"The ASA noted Universal Island Records' argument that the poster was not meant to cause offence or be seen as demeaning to women.  However, we considered that the main image on the poster was overtly sexual.  We noted that the pose of the woman showed her with her legs apart, her hand between her legs and her breasts partially exposed and considered that her facial expression was suggestive of an orgasm and sexual activity.  In addition to this, we considered that the album title "Balls Out" was sexually suggestive particularly when viewed in the context of the poster, where the woman was seen dangling two silver balls between her legs in a way that we considered was suggestive of male genitalia. 

We noted Universal Island Records' argument that the poster was meant to be viewed humorously and not to be taken seriously as it was meant to represent the over-the-top image of the band featured in the poster.  However, we considered that most people would not view the poster in this way and even if they had viewed it in that context, the poster was overtly sexual when taken as a whole.  Given its placement in a range of public locations, we concluded that it was likely to cause serious and widespread offence, was unsuitable to be seen by children and therefore was not appropriate for outdoor advertising."

Universal had stated that their media plan favoured locations that are "popular with adults for nights out" but since the campaign is over now anyway, it hardly matters.

What is interesting about all of this is the struggle between artistic licence in the pursuit of laughs and real-life standards against sexism, racism, and other social ills. It's such a fine line...




Tip via Adland

More hysterical censorship from the UK

Source

This transit ad, from the UK's Marks & Spencer chain, has been banned by the kingdom's ad regulator for being too sexy.

From their ruling:

"We noted the complainants’ concerns that this ad, displayed on buses, was likely to be seen by children. We considered that most children viewing the ad would understand that the poster was advertising lingerie and, as such, the models would not be fully clothed. We considered that the pose of the woman lying on the bed was only mildly sexual in nature, and as a result was unlikely to be seen as unsuitable to be seen by children. However, we considered that the pose of the woman kneeling on the bed was overtly sexual, as her legs were wide apart, her back arched and one arm above her head with the other touching her thigh. We also noted that the woman in this image wore stockings. We considered that the image was of an overtly sexual nature and was therefore unsuitable for untargeted outdoor display, as it was likely to be seen by children. We concluded that the ad was socially irresponsible."

If you read this blog, you know my stand on this. Using sex to sell everything is just lazy. Objectifying women in ads is insulting. But those are my opinions, not things I want regulated.

I honestly believe that we, as consumers, need to decide for ourselves what we are willing to tolerate from advertisers. Sexual exploitation of women in ads is so commonplace, in ads aimed at both men and women, that I'm surprised it has any breakthrough potential at all anymore. My 7-year-old son, just last weekend, was stopped in his tracks by a larger-than-life POP poster at Sears showing a woman in see through underwear. But that stopping power wears off. (In his case, he just blurted out "booby covers!" and laughed.)

You can choose to complain to a business about their ads. Or you can choose to not do business with them. You can choose to complain to the owner of the media. But this knee-jerk banning that's happening with the ASA in the UK really seems over the top to me. Plus, it only works into the offending advertisers hands by giving people a reason to take notice of their ads.

Generally, in social marketing, we feel that it's more effective to recognize and reinforce good behaviour than punish and shame bad. Imagine if organizations like the ASA put more of their efforts into celebrating the advertisers who are "socially responsible",  giving them the free PR while the naughty ones languished in the oversaturated sexy soup of the ad landscape. Wouldn't that be nice?

Via The Drum and The Telegraph