Two local businesses have been found to have violated the advertising code of conduct with marketing material deemed to be overly sexual in nature — in one case by sexualising a child and the other for being too sexually explicit.
While the offending advertisers — Mr Price Kids and agency service Escort South Africa — are not members of the Advertising Regulatory Board and therefore not bound by its decisions, the authority went ahead and ruled on the complaints against them to offer guidance to advertisers who are members.
In the case of Mr Price, consumer Natasja Oosthuizen laid a formal complaint against a Mr Price Kids window display. The in-store main image portrayed a pouting little girl sitting with her legs apart.
Oosthuizen complained: “A young female child with makeup sitting in a very inappropriately sexualised way with open legs is just inappropriate for a little girl. It smacks of objectifying females.”
The ARB contacted Mr Price with the complaint, and gave them the opportunity to respond. However, they received no reply.
“The advertiser has not responded to the complaint and therefore presumably does not submit voluntarily to the ARB’s jurisdiction.”
However, despite the absence of a submission to explain their side and their unwillingness to participate in the process, the ARB undertook to continue with a ruling on the complaint to communicate a decision to members who are bound by any instructions to reject or withdraw any advertising that is found to be in conflict with the Advertising Code of Practice.
The code, in terms of the Mr Price Kids complaint, holds that: “Children should not be portrayed as sexually appealing, provocative or in any manner which involves any form of sexual innuendo.”
“The directorate (of the ARB) took a great deal of care in the consideration of this advertisement, as complaints regarding children must always be treated with the utmost of sensitivity. We are also concerned about the thoughtless sexualisation of children in advertising and media,” the directorate said.
There is no argument or justification for a child to be positioned in a way that can be perceived as sexually suggestive.
— Advertising Regulatory Board
“At first glance, the image is not overtly problematic. The makeup that the complainant refers to is not obvious, and the child has a very youthful haircut, and is wearing a tracksuit that doesn’t hug her figure in any way.
“However, on further contemplation, the directorate agreed that the open legs, hands on hips and pout of the child, all contribute to a sexually suggestive positioning. While there is no indication one way or another that the advertiser intended this positioning to be suggestive, the fact remains that when it comes to using children as models, extra care must be taken to preserve innocence for the models themselves, and to avoid inappropriate (in this case, sexualised) depiction to the public.”
The directorate stated it could be argued that the little girl is conveying attitude — “possibly in imitation of adult models in a similar context, rather than any kind of sexualised message”.
But even if there was no deliberate intent behind the pose, the combination of the spread legs, hands on hips and pout were found to have the potential to be perceived as sexual.
“There is no argument or justification for a child to be positioned in a way that can be perceived as sexually suggestive. The directorate therefore finds that the advertisement makes use of imagery that is provocative and sexualised, and is therefore in contravention of the code.”
Oosthuizen's complaint was upheld and ARB members were instructed to not accept any advertising material from Mr Price Kids containing the image in dispute.
A second complaint involving sexualised advertising — this time laid by Nicola van der Merwe against Escort South Africa (ESA) — has also been upheld. Van der Merwe object to photographs openly displayed on the back of a delivery motorbike.
Van der Merwe said the images were offensive and harmful to children, and were public displays of “sexually explicit and inappropriate material”. She said she was shocked by the blatant display of images she felt were pornographic in nature.
“The advertisement shows the private parts of a woman in a sexually explicit pose. It advertises ‘escorts’ though it is clear that the product is a prostitute,” Van der Merwe complained.
The ARB said “all reasonable attempts” were made to contact Escort SA and elicit their response to the complaint, but they were unsuccessful. And so, as with Mr Price Kids, they went ahead and made a ruling on the complaint.
The directorate noted that whether ESA was offering an escort service or prostitution — and therefore illegal — was beyond its jurisdiction and was therefore not an issue to be considered.
“The only question is whether the advertising is in breach of the code which states that ‘No advertising may offend against good taste or decency or be offensive to public or sectoral values and sensitivities, unless the advertising is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom’.”
It should also contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread or sectoral offence, with material found to be offensive only to part of the audience being insufficient grounds for the upholding of an objection.
The directorate said the context, medium, likely audience, the nature of the service or product advertised, prevailing standards, social concerns and public interest were the relevant factors.
“The cause of offence in this complaint is centred around the view that the advertisement is pornographic and therefore inappropriate and harmful to children,” the ARB said.
“The directorate must consider the advertisement through the eyes of a hypothetical reasonable viewer who is not overly sensitive or hypercritical.
The alleged offensive advertisement depicted the bodies of two women on different sides of a delivery container. A photograph of ‘Leonora’ was found to be inoffensive as no inappropriate body parts were shown, nor did it depict any kind of sexual act.
“It can be argued that the same image could be used to advertise women’s swimwear or underwear, or can be seen on a beach without the same degree of sensitivity or discomfort.”
However, the image of ‘Kat’ showed part of a naked woman in an overtly sexual posture.
“The genitals are not explicitly visible (the photograph appears to have been heavily Photoshopped), and it does not depict a sexual act. However, the directorate is of the view that the lack of underwear and the position of the body is shown in a way that may be reasonably construed as inappropriately explicit material, and therefore harmful to children,” the directorate found.
The ARB has issued a request to members not to accept advertising from Escort SA displaying the image of ‘Kat’.
