I was going to include a reference to breasts in the headline, but thought it would be a little too obvious (even if on topic). Reference to peri-peri sauce on the other hand!
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 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.
15 comments
Stuart says:
May 12, 2009
Advertisers must love the ASB’s hair trigger – all they need to do is make an ad that they know will offend the required vocal 0.001% of the population, and sit back and lap up the attention. I know that’s what I’d do (and it’s certainly what Nando’s ad people are doing – this isn’t the first time this has happened. Props to them for doing their job well).
Adrian says:
May 12, 2009
Too right Stuart, classic example of why standards boards have little relevance to modern media and technology. Like the Streisand effect, in taking it of the television, all news websites have today reported the story and published youtube links to the commercial. Nandos must love all this free publicity, i wonder if they will send the ASB a thankyou gift?
Vanessa says:
May 13, 2009
I’m more offended by the twit’s personality in the ad than the use of her breasts. Funny how the complaints zone in on that part of being discriminatory than the airheadedness. :p
Sheila says:
May 13, 2009
Like Vanessa, i’m more annoyed with the idea that large breasts = stupid. I don’t know why Nando’s would want to be associated with stupid people.
Glenn says:
May 13, 2009
I agree with Stuart. There are always some bozos who would produce a humorous ad like this, but there are always some who would be offended by these at all. Take the BigPond ad. Although it was amusing, the ASB received complaints from both education department and parents.
I just had to laugh reading the complaint.
“It not only completely objectifies women, it asserts that women’s breasts, therefore women, are something to be eaten.”
This line is a classic.
SkipEU says:
May 14, 2009
Some people really have no humour…
Why are parents always using kids in complaints? The parents are really the one which are bothered.
Carl says:
May 14, 2009
And if it was a man with large pectoral muscles who couldn’t see his fries nobody would notice.
The irony is that claiming breasts are off limits to humour increases the objectification of women because now women become a class of citizen whose anatomies are treated differently. Breasts are no longer glands that come in all shapes and sizes, rather they become social symbols attached to a woman wherever she goes. A symbol a woman – like that actress in the ad – is not allowed to escape from.
Miss Nicole Jensen » Naughty nurses at CeBIT. Urgh. says:
May 15, 2009
[...] you couldn’t go above the cliched ’sex sells.’ At least it wasn’t as bad as Nando’s latest though, I’ll give NetRegistry that [...]
John says:
May 20, 2009
I do not know if this is relevant. There is a lot of controversy about Nandos adverts. Some websites are almost militant towards Nandos business. The above advert I found to be cheap but ASB went overboard. Adverts about male penis are allowed but women’s breast are of limits. I like Nando’s chicken (my blog: http://nandos.blog.com/2009/03/18/nandos-or-nandos-are-my-best-fast-food-outlet-i-do-not-like-their-adverts-but-nandos-chicken-is-very-yummy-i-like-the-idea-of-non-plastic-cutlery-and-fresh-flamed-grilled-chicken/#comments) and as long as Nandos chicken is right I do not care about morality of their adverts.
Liz says:
Jun 1, 2009
People should lighten up about this whole Nando’s ad. After all us females are our worst enemies. We always judge our books by the cover. Nando’s were just taking up on our own joke. I am sure woman are work at Nando’s. Nando’s have dont nothing to be ashamed of. They haven’t invented the wheel. This Nando’s add is nothing other like any celebrity gossip mags that are out on the stands everyday and yes WE ALL READ THEM! By the way I love this Portugasm think.
O and 1 more thing…it is what you teach your kids at home, Stop blaming only the media for this.
Evelyn says:
Jun 4, 2009
I agree with Carl. Its a girl in a singlet top with large boobs – since when is that offensive. It happen every day. Nando’s have just portrayed a day to day occurance.
taleya says:
Jan 6, 2010
Speaking as a large breasted woman myself…I UTTERLY PISSED MYSELF LAUGHING.
This actually happens. Damned things get in the way and you can’t see things underneath them. It’s no worse than an ad with a man walking into someone due to carrying a large parcel.
People need to lighten the hell up. Not everything is about sex, or your damned children.
Hortonsbury Phlebotrot says:
Jan 26, 2010
What the hell Nando’s is this with a waitress?
Jacky (medium breasted) says:
May 20, 2010
That ad is classic, tasteful, smart and funny. I mean, what woman DOESN’T want to be eaten??
Rohan says:
Jul 13, 2010
There was an AD once for Strike Bowling Bars in Melbourne which used the slogan ‘Smashing Pins!’ and an image of a female’s legs in a short skirt.
I decided to write a bogus complaint to the Advertising Standards people to see what the response was… I even used the ridiculous notion of sexual violence connotations becasue the younger generation actually used ‘I want to smash her…’ in reference to sexual conquest.
Anyways the rebuttal from the advertiser responsible was provided to me and was a rational and clearly stated objection to my hysterical interpritation of the AD.
The sad thing is if I sent off 100 such bogus complaints from 100 fake emails the AD would probably be banned!
I would love to post the rebuttal as it is interesting but I don’t know the legal ramifications… Could someone help me?