The billboard

The Tool Shop’s “Imagine all three at once” billboard is the advertising equivalent of trolling Facebook. And where there’s a troll there’s someone taking the bait. In this case Queensland Government Minister for Women, Karen Struthers.

Struthers says the wording of the ad is an explicit sexual reference that degrades women. Explicit? Hardly. Sexual? Maybe if you imagined all three women in the ad partaking in some sort of sexy home renovation. But what about all three power tools at once? Well I guess that’s Ms Struther’s business.

The Honourable Karen Struthers, Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women

Meanwhile Melinda Tankard Reist says the Tool Shop is run by, you guessed it, tools. And it’s sexist. She’ll be commenting on the ad on Sunrise at 7:20AM tomorrow.

According to the Courier Mail, fewer than five people have so far complained to the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB). In fact, a complaint to the ASB about a radio advertisement from the Tool Shop was recently dismissed. The gist of the ad or complaint I don’t know as a case report is unavailable.

For the time being the billboard stands tall on Beaudesert Road in Brisbane’s south.

As far as the Tool Shop is concerned their job here is done. For every 5 complaints there will be 25 admirers and perhaps 50 customers.

Nando’s has run fowl of the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) again, this time over an ad for their Classic Double Breast Burger. They have upheld community complaints against it. The ad features a woman who can’t find her chips because her breasts are blocking her view. Not exactly a creative masterpiece, but it works.

Watch:

The ASB report (PDF) says:

The Board considered that some members of the community would recognise the humour intended by the advertiser and regard the customer depicted in the advertisement as an over-the-top and ridiculous caricature, rather than finding it offensive. However, the Board also considered a significant proportion of the community would be offended by the advertisement and find that there was an element of sexuality and objectification of women that was concerning. On balance, the Board determined that the woman was depicted in the advertisement in such a way that was objectifying and demeaning and crossed the line in terms of discrimination towards women under Section 2.1 of the Code.

The Board therefore upheld the complaints.

What were those complaints? The ASB includes a sample:

‘It not only completely objectifies women, it asserts that women’s breasts, therefore women, are something to be eaten. [My emphasis] It is also sexually inappropriate for the time slot, regardless of the objectionable nature of the ad as a whole. Not appropriate for families to witness on tv. Degrading for females. Not appropriate to be compared to a burger. Sex should not sell burgers. Not necessary. The advert showed and had sexual connotations about the females breasts which were shown in a low cut top behind the burger. As a big breasted woman I found this to be offensive and think there are better ways to advertise a burger that contains 2 breast fillets in it. I also object to the time the ad was on which is when children/families sit down for tea or to watch television. It not only completely objectifies women, it asserts that women’s breasts, therefore women, are something to be eaten. It is also sexually inappropriate for the time slot, regardless of the objectionable nature of the ad as a whole.’

‘Not appropriate for families to witness on tv. Degrading for females. Not appropriate to be compared to a burger. Sex should not sell burgers. Not necessary.’

‘The advert showed and had sexual connotations about the females breasts which were shown in a low cut top behind the burger. As a big breasted woman I found this to be offensive and think there are better ways to advertise a burger that contains 2 breast fillets in it. I also object to the time the ad was on which is when children/families sit down for tea or to watch television.’

I can understand why this TVC might offend some, but to suggest it asserts women’s breasts (or women) are something to be eaten is pushing it. Never the less, keep an eye out for Hannibal Lector’s photo on the manager on duty sign next time you’re in store.

Aussie media blog Mumbrella writes that the Australian Family Association has labeled the ad sexist and that the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) has received 45 complaints about it. That’s a pretty high number compared to the usual one or two received by at ASB (A.M.I ads the exception).

The soft drink giant is now awaiting the outcome of the ASB investigation. Watch it here:

Some of my female mates find it offensive, but it seems more boring to me than anything else.

A parody of the Freeview TV commercial has been removed from YouTube due to a ‘terms of use violation‘, but it’s creators maintain their Mash-Up is fair comment and thereby the use of it and a Ford Fiesta TVC is fair use. Watch a copy of the spoof ad below (or if it’s gone, see a high resolution .MOV version here).

Last week it was alleged Freeview would be taking legal action against the creators of the spoof, but that turned out not to be true. Find out more here and listen to an interview with one of the creators, comedian Dan Ilic, on TechWired AU.

Source: LiveNews / Bob Bain for tip off

Jack Vaisman from AMI says it is much easier to explain the word ‘bonk’ in different meaning than the word sex. He told ABC News:

“The word sex you cannot avoid to tell exactly ‘What does it mean?’ But with the word ‘bonk’ you can choose something to say a different way.”

The new billboard can be seen in Sydney on Paramatta Road.

Update 17/11/2008: Some video of the new ads thanks to the No Censorship Aus YouTube channel.

Update 17/11/2008 11:29AM: Stop the clock. Complaints are in. According to ABC ‘the Advertising Standards Bureau says it has received numerous complaints about new billboards advertising a medication for sexual dysfunction.’ The board will decide the fate of the new boards within the next two weeks. More here.

See my post What’s Wrong With Being Offended for more on the AMI case and offensive material in general.

It comes after one of the petition’s organisers saw an on-car-advertisement for a carwash featuring a woman in a suggestive pose. Hose between legs perhaps?

SMH writes:

Matthew Restall and Bridget Spinks have 4000 signatures, including that of Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell, and are hoping to collect as many as 100,000 by January, when they will be submitted to the NSW and Victorian parliaments to be tabled.

[...]

Ms Spinks said there was great support – from both religious and non-religious people – for the campaign, which has been backed by The Catholic Weekly.

Bridget Spinks says that if no one acts now, by 2040 the level of our community standards is going to drop and ‘Who knows what our children are having to deal with.’

Restall says this version of the AMI ad attracts to much attention. Have advertisers no shame?

As for Matthew Restall – well it seems he just won’t rest. He’s been campaigning to have AMI’s Want Longer Lasting Sex billboards banned for six months and isn’t happy that they have replaced ‘sex’ with ‘censored.’ You can’t please everyone huh. I’d love to hear Mr Restall explain how the AMI ad in its newest state objectifies women or is inappropriate for children.

Catholic Weekly writes:

He [Matthew Restall] said the recent “censoring” of billboards was a superficial move designed to appease the Advertising Standards Bureau while attracting more attention. He has welcomed The Catholic Weekly’s support and expects that “hundreds of Catholic families will take up the cause and get behind this campaign which seeks to clean the environment of the real pollutants in our cities”.

He said the company behind the billboards “has replaced its signs only to gain more publicity”.

They spoke about this on Sunrise this morning and Kochie said one or two people complaining to the ASB and then the ads being removed was taking it too far. Too right Kochie.

‘Child advocacy’ campaigner Julie Gale (Kids Free To Be Kids) says ‘the new ads showed the advertiser was not serious about complying with the earlier ruling.’ Amazing. If half the energy that was wasted on these billboards was actually spent on real child protection initiatives, some kids might really be better off.

The association’s state secretary Max Howard said calling a drink Cocaine is just wrong and trivialising an illicit drug is unethical. He’ll seek advice from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as to whether the beverage can be marketed in Australia.

It’s madness people! First you drink an innocent glass of milk, then you graduate to a glass of Cocaine and before you know it your snorting powder off a toilet seat in Kings Cross!

We can’t put all the blame on Cocaine though. Until 1903 Coca-Cola (or Coke) had nine milligrams of cocaine per glass. Surely that, it’s irresistable red cans, and the fact it’s called Coke is the reason our kids are turning to drugs?

It doesn’t stop at the soda giants either.

Drug groups and outraged parents say Jim Beam-branded chips (which do not contain alcohol but are bourbon whiskey-flavoured) are promoting alcohol to kids. However, a spokesman for Jim Beam said the chips were not marketed towards children and were intended to be sold mostly in bottle shops.

Unlike Cocaine there are some legitmate concerns here, but I wouldn’t worry too much. John Della Bosca has a plan.

News Ltd writes he’ll argue for a ban on alcohol advertising at a national ministerial council meeting in November.

Ban. Ban. Ban. Problem solved. No?

Too hot for Brisbane buses? Give me a break.

Even us precious Brisbane folk can tolerate some clothed ass. Anyone in the CBD passes giant posters of scantily clad women daily when we walk past the local Bras N Things stores.

Brisbane City Council have been quick to point out they aren’t prudes, it’s the company that handles their advertising, BusPak, that’s banned the ad (possibly because it displays too much skin).

It’s okay elsewhere though. Commuters in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth will see the ad on their buses (and trams) from Sunday.

Where else but Queensland…

AMI's new billboard. Teaching kids how stupid censorship is?

Advanced Medical Institute has begun rolling out their new billboards which will read ‘Want Longer Lasting Censored?‘

AMI CEO Jack Vaisman had this to say about the change:

‘We have to comply with the Advertising Standards Bureau regulations and we decided that we would change the message and we appeal to the public through our interviews and asked if anyone could come up with a better substitute for the word ‘sex’. Someone suggested “censored” and the idea stuck. Stark black and white lettering now sits over the old billboard’s red and yellow colour palette.‘

But one parent in Stanwell Park south of Sydney couldn’t wait. Steve took it upon himself to alter one of the billboards in his area, changing sex to sox. He told the Herald:

‘It wasn’t done for notoriety and nor are we wowsers, we just got sick ‘n’ tired of our kids having to be subjected to ‘sexual inadequacy’ and ‘limp-penis’ adverts everyday when going past on their school bus.’

If kids weren’t confused before, they will be now. Longer Lasting Sox. Heavens.

No one will forget that the word behind that giant censored is ‘sex’. It isn’t offensive and it’s not naughty (even in the context of the advertisement), yet it’s censored. Maybe those parents who claimed not to support censorship yet rallied behind the billboard removal will be more comfortable explaining what censored means to their children instead of sex.

I was discussing the billboards on Aussie tech forum Overclockers today and was surprised at the number of people who supported the ASB’s decision.

Most folks thought the ads were annoying and were glad to see them given the boot, others admitted they had no objections to them but accepted others did. I don’t recall anyone admitting that the ad offended them, but the overwhelming majority appeared to support the methods used by the ASB.

That’s worrying for a country on the verge of Internet censorship and fighting for an R18+ games rating.

Even if you dislike the ads (or the penis piano ads on television, or the late night SMS ads), supporting a decision to remove any form of media because you or someone else found it ‘confronting’ or offensive sets a dangerous precedent.

If we follow that logic there’s reason to ban everything. Science books, the bible, celebrity magazines, pornography, violent films, computer games. Everybody finds something offensive.

All of these games have offended or outraged family groups and concerned parents at some point. Would you support them being banned because others find them inappropriate?

Some people accept it as the cost of free speech, but others believe it is their right not to be offended, as if it were a crime. They are of course judge, jury and executioner, deciding what’s a breach of their moral code. A code they believe should be followed by you and me.

We’ve all been offended at some stage in our lives, probably every week. If not, it’s likely we aren’t confronting issues we should be. Imagine if every time you were offended by something you could stop it from happening. Would you, even if it meant restricting another persons free speech?

Think of how many times you’ve offended someone or confronted them with a topic they may not have liked. Imagine if they had the right to restrict what you could say. Few of us would let that fly.

It’s hard to stick up for erectile dysfunction (pun intended), but as net censorship looms and gamers fight for their right to play uncensored video games, allowing any form of censorship to slide will only help those who see to have our rights restricted.

Terms like sexualisation and protecting children are being thrown around when we all know the real agenda is far from being in the best interests of children.

If we accept these excuses now and say one form of censorship or suppression is fine, than those excuses will continue to be used again and again, but with more weight.

- Mike