Sex and violence - The knives are out for advertisers who go too far

16 March 2007

D&G and No Added Sugar received negative media coverage  as a result of ASA adjudications upholding complaints

In today’s world of 24 hour media, where images from every corner of the globe are instantaneously beamed live to our homes, pcs and mobile phones as well as written about in our newspapers, it is not uncommon for us to see scenes of conflict, suffering, devastation or lewdness in graphically stark high-definition detail. We are bombarded everyday through the news, magazines, films, music, art and television with hard-hitting and often controversial scenes and pictures.

Advertisers, too, have been known to use provocative imagery to grab consumers’ attention. But how far should they be allowed to push the boundaries and when does an ad stop being innovative and thought-provoking and simply become shocking or offensive?

The ASA has recently investigated and upheld complaints against two highly controversial ad campaigns, one that depicted violence and another that sexualised children. The public are quick to condemn advertisements that portray scenes of that nature. But, when we are subjected to equally risqué material across different media on a daily basis, why does advertising come in for such criticism? Furthermore, what lessons can advertisers learn from the public reaction to that type of subject matter?

Two national press ads for the fashion brand Dolce & Gabbana prompted 165 complaints that they were irresponsible and offensive because they condoned and glamorised knife-related violence. The nature of the complaints was especially serious, with the concerns of families affected by knife crime voiced by groups such as Mothers Against Murder and Aggression (MAMAA) and Media March.

The first ad featured young men brandishing knives towards a peer while a fourth man lay on the floor with a wound in his forehead. The second ad featured two men supporting a woman who was holding a knife and had a wound on her chest.

Dolce & Gabbana argued that the ads were highly stylised and intended to evoke the iconic paintings of the Napoleonic period of art. The advertiser believed the scenes were not realistic and did not suggest violence or an offensive act.

The ASA disagreed. It considered that, despite the stylised approach, the imagery in the first ad showed knives being branded aggressively. Coupled with the man lying with a wound in his forehead, the impression of the ad as a whole was one of violence.  Because it could be seen as condoning and glorifying knife-related violence, the ASA concluded that the ad was irresponsible. The ASA considered the second ad glamorised knives in a similar way and was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence. D&G was reminded of one of the fundamental principles of the CAP Code – to prepare ads with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society – and to take care in the placement of similar ads in the future.

Although it did not prompt the same volume of complaints as the D&G ads, a series of thematic photographs in a children’s clothing catalogue raised an equally serious concern, that of sexualising children. The catalogue featured images of children in various poses and wearing make-up. Each picture had an accompanying caption to convey a story about taking lessons in etiquette. The ASA received complaints that the images were offensive and irresponsible, because they showed children in a sexually provocative manner.

Although not every picture was found in breach of the Code, the ASA upheld complaints about three of the six images on the grounds that the ads depicted the children in a sexually provocative way. One featured a young girl on all fours on top of a chest of drawers with a clock on the wall above; she was looking behind her. The caption stated “PUNCTUALITY ‘A gentleman should never keep a lady waiting, and a true lady should act like one!’”. Another shot showed a young girl on the back seat of her car with her legs sprawled out; the text stated “RULES AND REGULATIONS ‘Not to be violated, seat belts included’”.  The ASA instructed the advertiser not to use the images or similar ones again.

So why do advertisements like those elicit such a reaction from the public when, for instance, films can feature scenes of violence or explore sexually explicit themes in much more vivid terms without causing the same uproar? For starters, people have no control over what advertisement will appear in a commercial break or on a poster on the high street. Although they can make an informed choice, based on listings guides and scheduling restrictions, whether they want to watch a TV programme, viewers are not afforded that luxury where ads are concerned. Furthermore, adults can judge whether the content of a programme or a magazine is suitable for their child before allowing them to watch or read it. When advertisers create images or text that people find offensive or irresponsible, consumers can feel justifiably upset that they have been subjected to the ad without prior warning.

Research conducted on behalf of the ASA into the public’s attitude towards serious offence in non-broadcast advertisements confirms that advertising is viewed differently from editorial. Consumers’ expectation is that advertisements should meet very high standards, perhaps because they cannot control when and where ads appear.

When questioned about their greatest advertising concern, consumers placed most emphasis on protecting children. According to those questioned, the portrayal of children in a sexualised manner is the strongest taboo in advertisements. Similarly, depictions of violence were likely to highly offend people.

Judging what is and is not likely to cause serious or widespread offence has never been an easy task. Advertisers obviously do not want to alienate or upset the very people they are seeking custom from. But producing images or choosing themes that depict sex or violence requires special care if you want to avoid complaints about your advertisements. Being told to withdraw your expensive and creative campaign by the ASA is bad enough. Damage to brand reputation and loss of consumer goodwill as a result of an ill-judged subversive image is another. It pays to listen to what the public think; do not give them an axe to grind.

Click here to read the Dolce & Gabanna adjudication
Click here to read the No Added Sugar adjudication