Sexist ads, have you ever made a complaint?

Morag · 12-01-2012 11:00am

No, I don't think that making the complaints about the 'He drives, she dies' campaign was pointless. While The ASAI could not take action they did send out a press release with the numbers of complaints which was picked up by the media and put pressure on the RSA and let people know that sort of message of blaming men is not acceptable.

Zulu · 12-01-2012 12:01pm

Sharrow wrote: »

No, I don't think that making the complaints about the 'He drives, she dies' campaign was pointless...

That's not the salient point, that's the example.

Morag · 12-01-2012 1:48pm

Well what is salient to one person is not necessarily to another, so care to elucidate on what you consider to be the outstanding point?

Zulu · 12-01-2012 1:50pm

Sigh...: when complaints are apparently ignored or at least no result is evident, that subsequent complaints are far less likly? (The converse applies, if ad's are pulled, with suitable media attention, following complaints are more likly to occur.)

Morag · 12-01-2012 3:01pm

The RSA did stop the 'safety notices' and did stop that campaign after complaints, with out the ASAI doing more then the pres releases about the complaints, that was a result.

Zulu · 12-01-2012 3:13pm

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Galvasean · 12-01-2012 3:15pm

I'm almost tempted to buy some radio ad space and ape the Nova ad and change it to, "Me bird kept talkin' shyte, so I belted her one!"
Of course my hypothetical ad would not be banned, because it would never get close to being broadcast on public radio - because, frankly, it's obscene. Frankly I'm amazed the Nova ad has not been pulled yet. Compare it to the Hunky Dorys fiasco. That was front page news with a massive public campaign to get rid of it. All over some cleavage and some really unfunny captions. Yet, now we have an ad that apparently advocates physically abusing one's partner and there's sweet buzz all about it anywhere.

Galvasean · 12-01-2012 3:17pm

re: the RSA campaign. They didn't pull it due to complaints. They defended it tooth and nail citing that the majority of crashes are by males and therefore the ads were in the public's best interest. The campaign disappeared because it ran it's natural course (as all ad campaigns do) and was not deemed particularly successful.

Chuck Stone · 12-01-2012 3:34pm

First of all I have to say that I can't see myself ever being annoyed enough to make a complaint about an advert.

With that in mind I was quite surprised with the recent ad by.... um... [goes looking on youtube]..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NChuiwwpr6Q

.. Lindt.

Basically this ad is telling us that women are chocolate obsessed morons who abuse a position of power to strip search a man they find attractive for sexual gratification rather than security reasons.

I mean, imagine that add reversed and it was two male security staff stealing... beer(?) and telling Maria Sharapova she will have to take off her clothes?

I don't think it would ever make it past the 'are you fucking stupid or what' stage as a proposal for an ad.

Just sayin'.

Fear Uladh · 12-01-2012 3:39pm

Galvasean wrote: »

re: the RSA campaign. They didn't pull it due to complaints. They defended it tooth and nail citing that the majority of crashes are by males and therefore the ads were in the public's best interest. The campaign disappeared because it ran it's natural course (as all ad campaigns do) and was not deemed particularly successful.

Good stuff.

Sonics2k · 12-01-2012 4:24pm

Sorry Galv, have you got a link to that Nova ad?

Don't think I've seen it or forgotten which it is

Mac 3 · 13-01-2012 12:39am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

First of all I have to say that I can't see myself ever being annoyed enough to make a complaint about an advert.

With that in mind I was quite surprised with the recent ad by.... um... [goes looking on youtube]..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NChuiwwpr6Q

.. Lindt.

Basically this ad is telling us that women are chocolate obsessed morons who abuse a position of power to strip search a man they find attractive for sexual gratification rather than security reasons.

I mean, imagine that add reversed and it was two male security staff stealing... beer(?) and telling Maria Sharapova she will have to take off her clothes?

I don't think it would ever make it past the 'are you fucking stupid or what' stage as a proposal for an ad.

Just sayin'.

You beat me to it. This is the one that stuck out in my mind.

The J Stands for Jay · 13-01-2012 12:46am

Sonics2k wrote: »

I think that's actually part of the point as far as a lot of men are concerned. We don't view it as sexist, but if you remember the recent debate about Largo foods, women found that ad to be extremely sexist, even though it was basically the same thing, which again, most men didn't find to be sexist.

So either, we're not sensitive enough, or some people are too sensitive.

No-one ever remembers the Hunky Dorys poster campaign You wouldn't kick him out of bed for eating crisps with the lads in their boxers. But all the ladies remember the girls version...

Shattered Dreamer · 13-01-2012 12:59am

People who get offended by adverts clearly need to get a life. If they put all that energy they waste complaining about adverts into telling the Government what a ****ty job they're doing the country might be in a better state lol

source · 13-01-2012 1:59am

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

People who get offended by adverts clearly need to get a life. If they put all that energy they waste complaining about adverts into telling the Government what a ****ty job they're doing the country might be in a better state lol

I agree with you, (not about the getting a life part.....the government part), but I have to admit that I'm willing to make a complaint about sexist ads. Not because they're sexist, not because I've little else to be worried about, but because I can't stand the double standards and hypocrisy that masquerade as political correctness.

The points made in this thread are correct, take any of the ads mentioned above and swap the sexes and there'd be war from the PC/feminist brigade crying about how it's objectifying women.......the same people will then go watch a diet coke ad or alpro and think nothing of it.

It's hypocritical and it doesn't wash with me. Nor should it with you or anyone else. The attitude of 'we're men, just shrug it off' is one that has us in the position we're in today.

Women do not have a monopoly on being the targets of sexism. Nobody should have to tolerate it, male or female.

I'd love to see a world where adverts can appeal the the target audience. Whether that's by showing scantily clad women or topless men.

But unfortunately we live in a world where political correctness has gone mad, and things are banned in case someone gets offended. Not because someone has gotten offended. And it's because of this that we have to complain.

Galvasean · 13-01-2012 2:33am

source wrote: »

I agree with you, (not about the getting a life part.....the government part), but I have to admit that I'm willing to make a complaint about sexist ads. Not because they're sexist, not because I've little else to be worried about, but because I can't stand the double standards and hypocrisy that masquerade as political correctness.

The points made in this thread are correct, take any of the ads mentioned above and swap the sexes and there'd be war from the PC/feminist brigade crying about how it's objectifying women.......the same people will then go watch a diet coke ad or alpro and think nothing of it.

It's hypocritical and it doesn't wash with me. Nor should it with you or anyone else. The attitude of 'we're men, just shrug it off' is one that has us in the position we're in today.

Women do not have a monopoly on being the targets of sexism. Nobody should have to tolerate it, male or female.

I'd love to see a world where adverts can appeal the the target audience. Whether that's by showing scantily clad women or topless men.

But unfortunately we live in a world where political correctness has gone mad, and things are banned in case someone gets offended. Not because someone has gotten offended. And it's because of this that we have to complain.

But I don't want to complain about ads where men take off their clothes to sell things. If a guy can run around in the nip to advertise perfume then more power to him I say! Same for women.
take this Lacoste ad for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw-G5zaRAlQ

A hellofa lot more on show than those Hunky Dorys ads, but I dont think its worthy of complaining about. Ditto if it was a naked woman. It's just a bit of noodie. I think the only people who complain about sexy scantily clad people selling stuff are people who are extremely insecure about their own appearance.
Of course, as far as I'm concerned noodie people ads are not sexist. However an ad that trivializes a woman physically abusing her partner is (like the aforementioned Nova ad - cant find it on Youtube, sorry) quite horrible in my eyes. It's indicative that society is happy to make a joke out of abusing a man while had the genders been reversed there would be a serious issue made of it. Either both are unacceptable or both are acceptable. For anyone to suggest otherwise is truly sexist.

Morag · 13-01-2012 3:36am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NChuiwwpr6Q

.. Lindt.

I was linked to that over the week and was frankly gobsmacked by it.
No one should have to suffer sexual harassment and by making a joke out of it esp with a male victim it perpetuates the myths about it.

KyussBishop · 13-01-2012 6:23am

I almost never watch TV, and even in Firefox have adblock etc. installed, so I never see ads on the internet either; as a result, whenever I do watch TV, I always find ads intensely annoying.

It's not because "there are ads", it's just that so many of the ads tick at least one of these conditions that I find annoying:
1: Stereotypes/cliches, e.g. like mentioned earlier in the thread, men stereotyped as clumsy/stupid
2: Just...weirdness/creepiness...that ad I saw over christmas, I think for cards that play back a voice recording; it was advertised by having a card play back a voice recording to kids, from their dead grandmother, wtf..
3: Loud or cringe inducing; that animated 'crossing the road' safety ad
4: Bad jokes or particiularly lame attempts at humour, that aren't funny even the first time you see the ad; that ad with Pat Shortt
5: Bad science and dodgy stats (90% of which is 'researched' by the company selling the product); it's basically false advertising, yet is prevalent in a ton of ads
6: Ads which spend most of the time pontificating, philosophizing or bull****ting, without giving a hint of what the product is, and which reveal it in the last 5 seconds; e.g. some car ads, really pointless
7: Public safety or scaremongering type ads; stupid laughter-track drinking ad, don't-smoke ad squeezing fat/sludge out of an aorta, road safety ads with various gory deaths, which probably scare the $hite out of little kids more than any drivers
8: Disgusting ads; toenail infection ads while eating dinner
9: Actually yea...I should just say 'ads', heh, as I think I've covered most varieties here.

Since I rarely see ads, I'm not desensitized to the bull**** factor in them at all, so find them a fair bit more annoying than most

The best ads are the ones that just get to the point, e.g. the power city or woodies diy type ads; cheaply made with some guy in an ill-fitting suit, reciting items and their prices, with a lame background jingle.
The repetitiveness of them is annoying, but at least they are honest and to the point

MyKeyG · 13-01-2012 11:37am

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

People who get offended by adverts clearly need to get a life. If they put all that energy they waste complaining about adverts into telling the Government what a ****ty job they're doing the country might be in a better state lol

Don't be so ridiculous! People can't help what affects them and not you or anyone else has the right to trivialise that.

If you were in any way broad minded (although I doubt it because in fairness who posts 'lol' anymore:rolleyes:) you would be able to take this thread at face value. That is that people are merely discussing the negative aspects of advertising, they're not talking about converging on the advertising authority with torches and pitchforks.

Does every thread on Boards have to deal with the recession, the bankers and the government?

Maguined · 13-01-2012 11:49am

MyKeyG wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous! People can't help what affects them and not you or anyone else has the right to trivialise that.

I think people can help what affects them, there is also a personal level of acting within reason to emotions. You can say people do not have the right to trivialise other humans emotion reactions however I do not think such a blanket statement is true, for example if a friend of yours was eating their ice cream and they dropped it onto the ground and burst into tears over it would you support their emotional reaction or would you trivialise it by telling them to cop themselves on it's only an ice cream?

Children are expected to just give into their emotions, becoming an adult is having the maturity to rationalise certain emotions. Personally I think anyone that gets upset over a man or woman being naked or objectified in an advert is just immature.

Shattered Dreamer · 13-01-2012 12:10pm

source wrote: »

I agree with you, (not about the getting a life part.....the government part), but I have to admit that I'm willing to make a complaint about sexist ads. Not because they're sexist, not because I've little else to be worried about, but because I can't stand the double standards and hypocrisy that masquerade as political correctness.

The points made in this thread are correct, take any of the ads mentioned above and swap the sexes and there'd be war from the PC/feminist brigade crying about how it's objectifying women.......the same people will then go watch a diet coke ad or alpro and think nothing of it.

It's hypocritical and it doesn't wash with me. Nor should it with you or anyone else. The attitude of 'we're men, just shrug it off' is one that has us in the position we're in today.

Women do not have a monopoly on being the targets of sexism. Nobody should have to tolerate it, male or female.

I'd love to see a world where adverts can appeal the the target audience. Whether that's by showing scantily clad women or topless men.

But unfortunately we live in a world where political correctness has gone mad, and things are banned in case someone gets offended. Not because someone has gotten offended. And it's because of this that we have to complain.

A world without sexualized advertising would be great but lets face it when popular culture is dominated by "smut pedallers" like Rihanna or Katie Price & people continue to consume whatever they happen to be selling that week this kind of thing won't go away.

As for the people who find things sexist, 90% of the time lets be honest the reason why these people complain is based on jealousy. Why is it inappropriate that catwalk models be Size 0 (which mind you I find disgusting) because it's an unrealistic body image for women to emulate. It's not banned on grounds of any health concern regardless of what they might tell you. The vast majority of people who are offended because these ads remind them of their own personal inadequacies.

MyKeyG wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous! People can't help what affects them and not you or anyone else has the right to trivialise that.

If you were in any way broad minded (although I doubt it because in fairness who posts 'lol' anymore:rolleyes:) you would be able to take this thread at face value. That is that people are merely discussing the negative aspects of advertising, they're not talking about converging on the advertising authority with torches and pitchforks.

Does every thread on Boards have to deal with the recession, the bankers and the government?

I'm not saying every threads needs to be about the government but I think people who get offended by an ad where a woman is showing a little too much cleavage or it depicts a man with a body you can't achieve without steroids need to get a life. Most of the general public are offended not because the ads are inappropriate but because it reminds them of insecurities they have about their own appearance.

As for me not being "broad minded" for using lol, I'm sorry I forgot my hipster glasses & all year round scarf & when I take them off I tend to use slang like the "little people". The first step from that pedestal can be dangerous be careful you don't fall :rolleyes:

MyKeyG · 13-01-2012 2:15pm

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

I'm not saying every threads needs to be about the government but I think people who get offended by an ad where a woman is showing a little too much cleavage or it depicts a man with a body you can't achieve without steroids need to get a life.

You don't pay attention very well do you? My point is who's getting offended? Do you lack the ability to conceive something as a hearty discussion/debate regardless of the subject matter? It's a discussion about advertising. Nobody is attacking anyone's points, nobody was degrading the conversation to pithy remark until you decided to arrive with your flippancy.

Most of the general public are offended not because the ads are inappropriate but because it reminds them of insecurities they have about their own appearance.

In the event people do get upset because of insecurities I find it remarkably callous to consider them as being in need of a life. It's a very cruel observation!

As for me not being "broad minded" for using lol, I'm sorry I forgot my hipster glasses & all year round scarf & when I take them off I tend to use slang like the "little people". The first step from that pedestal can be dangerous be careful you don't fall :rolleyes:

And you think someone telling a thread full of people to get a life isn't pompous at all??? Try not to be too hypocritical if you can help it!

Chuck Stone · 13-01-2012 7:13pm

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

lets face it when popular culture is dominated by "smut pedallers" like Rihanna

I find Rihanna very attractive and she's not the worst performer in my estimation. Never really viewed her as smutty.

Katie Price

Wouldn't be my type (the opposite even) but she's an astute business woman who knows her target audience well and how to make the most from the media attention she gets.

Just sayin'.

Shattered Dreamer · 13-01-2012 7:16pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I find Rihanna very attractive and she's not the worst performer in my estimation. Never really viewed her as smutty.

Never said I didn't find her attractive but whatever way you put it she's definitely a smut pedaller made even worse by the fact the main audience for her music is young girls.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Wouldn't be my type (the opposite even) but she's an astute business woman who knows her target audience well and how to make the most from the media attention she gets.
Just sayin'.

Just because she's an astute smut pedaller doesn't make it alright.

Whatever way you want to put it these 2 are an example of the stereotype used in advertisements that people complain about like it or lump it.

Chuck Stone · 13-01-2012 8:19pm

'Smut pedallers'... must keep my eye out for that type of thing.

Dudess · 13-01-2012 8:27pm

"Get a life haha" and "lol" - outstanding debating skills there.

MyKeyG wrote: »

And you have evidence that women do take the time out to complain?

Well yeah obviously a number of women do - look at the Hunky Dorys campaign.

Logical Fallacy · 13-01-2012 9:50pm

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

People who get offended by adverts clearly need to get a life. If they put all that energy they waste complaining about adverts into telling the Government what a ****ty job they're doing the country might be in a better state lol

lol, if you really think that then your name will be more than justified as you mature.

Daftendirekt · 14-01-2012 5:08pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

The best ads are the ones that just get to the point, e.g. the power city or woodies diy type ads; cheaply made with some guy in an ill-fitting suit, reciting items and their prices, with a lame background jingle.
The repetitiveness of them is annoying, but at least they are honest and to the point

Bit off-topic, but this reminded me of the Coke ad in The Invention of Lying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhtTU-guW60

citytillidie · 24-01-2012 9:01pm

Just emailed P&G as I think there current slogan is a bit sexiest, saying they are proud sponsors of Mums and how Mums deserve to win tickets to the Olympics.

py2006 · 24-01-2012 11:37pm

The bottom line is that in general men do not care about such things. I would never be offended by an ad that objectifies or mocks a man. Its just bad/good humour.

However, as a man, I am sick of the the various double standards from some women in relation to sexism etc. most some women believe sexism relates to what men do and are completely oblivious to the fact that they are just as guilty of those things. It is so annoying and infuriating. I believe, on that principle some men would complain.

Also, in my experience, the women who complain about such ads are extremely insecure about themselves and/or very jealous of attractive women and have absolutely no problems when the genders are reversed!

Sexist ads, have you ever made a complaint?

Comments