Once again, our societies ability to imagine offence, where none was given, has raised a news story.
In this case the Advertising Standards Agency took offence at a light-hearted play on words. The company suffering from their false prudery, was Lewis Oliver Estates an estate agents in the Coventry area.
They had wanted to put up a poster which featured a topless man, in boxer shorts with the words 'WOW, What a package' across the crotch (something like my mock up above) ..... they were advertising a fully managed letting service. But in one of those judgements that make you weep for the Britain we have lost, the advertising watchdog stated that the advert was "objectifying men," and that "the image of a topless man bore no relation to the product," and also that the advert was "likely to cause serious offence" .... by whom, it didn't manage to state.
They eventually let them place the advert on billboards after a redesign ..... but this isn't the only example of this type of intervention. However when you look at a famous bra advert.
Then you have to wonder if dual standards are applied?
Plenty of hard-line members of a certain community would object to this famous advert. Wouldn't they be "likely to" take "serious offence" at semi naked women, and there are also feminist groups who object to semi-naked women being "objectified." After all they have both done so before, and will no doubt do so again, so why was that bra advert untouched?
 |
| WHAT A PACKAGE - Offensive? |
In this case the Advertising Standards Agency took offence at a light-hearted play on words. The company suffering from their false prudery, was Lewis Oliver Estates an estate agents in the Coventry area.
They had wanted to put up a poster which featured a topless man, in boxer shorts with the words 'WOW, What a package' across the crotch (something like my mock up above) ..... they were advertising a fully managed letting service. But in one of those judgements that make you weep for the Britain we have lost, the advertising watchdog stated that the advert was "objectifying men," and that "the image of a topless man bore no relation to the product," and also that the advert was "likely to cause serious offence" .... by whom, it didn't manage to state.
 |
| WOW What A Package |
They eventually let them place the advert on billboards after a redesign ..... but this isn't the only example of this type of intervention. However when you look at a famous bra advert.
 |
| Hello Boyz .... Got Anything To Do With Bras? |
Then you have to wonder if dual standards are applied?
Plenty of hard-line members of a certain community would object to this famous advert. Wouldn't they be "likely to" take "serious offence" at semi naked women, and there are also feminist groups who object to semi-naked women being "objectified." After all they have both done so before, and will no doubt do so again, so why was that bra advert untouched?
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.