11/470
DECISION
Chairman’s Ruling
19 August 2011
Complaint 11/470
Complainant: J. Hanton and M. Bandara
Advertisement: Ecoya
Complaint: The billboard advertisement for Ecoya, makers of home fragrances and
body care products, featured the top half of a naked woman holding her arm and
hand out, across her body, for an owl to perch upon. Alongside the image of the
woman and the owl were the words:
“BODYCARE by ECOYA
www.ecoya.com”
Complainant, J. Hanton, said of the image of the woman: “The outline of her
breasts is clearly visible and the viewer is led to believe she isn‟t wearing
underwear. This is pornographic and offensive. It‟s prominence on a main city road
makes it even more objectionable as it‟s so „in your face.‟”
Duplicate Complainant, M. Bandara considered the advertisement to be in breach
of a number of requirements of the ASA Codes and Practice similar to another
Ecoya billboard advertisement upheld by the Complaints Board in a separate
complaint.
The relevant provisions were Basic Principle 4 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Code
of Ethics.
The Chairman noted that, in the Complainants‟ views, the billboard advertisement
was offensive, and was even more objectionable because of its location.
When considering the issue of nudity in the advertisement, the Chairman referred to
a previous advertisement for Ecoya (11/349) that was dominated by a naked women
sitting astride a horse. That Decision stated, in part:
2 11/470
“…after viewing the Ecoya billboard, the majority of the Complaints Board
was of the view that the findings of the Complaints Board in Decision
(11/086) did not apply in this case - even though there was no genitalia
shown - because the image of the naked woman dominated the billboard
unlike the model in the previous Decision. Moreover, the majority found that
that the pose adopted by the woman – naked, astride a horse - was both
highly sexualised and provocative in nature … and, as such, found that the
advertisement breached Rules 4 and 5 and Basic Principle 4 of the Code of
Ethics.”
Turning the billboard advertisement before her, the Chairman said that the image
was different in a number of ways from the image of the woman on a horse in
Decision 11/349, insofar as the image featured the top half of the woman only, and
the image of the woman did not dominate the advertisement. Most importantly, she
said that the woman did not appear in a sexualised position.
She then noted another earlier Complaints Board Decision (11/086) which also used
the image of a naked woman sitting on the tray of a utility vehicle to promote the
television series, America‟s Top Model. That Decision stated, in part:
“The Complaints Board further noted that whilst it was clear that the woman
was intended to be naked no genitalia was shown. The Complaints Board
further considered that the image was neither salacious nor titillating.
Therefore, the Complaints Board considered that it was a long bow to draw
to say that the image was „pornographic‟.”
While she acknowledged the offence cause to the Complainants by the image and
its location, she said that the previous Complaint Board Decision (11/086) applied in
this case as the nudity of the woman in billboard advertisement did not reach the
threshold to be considered likely to cause serious or widespread offence, taking into
account generally prevailing community standards, and as such, said that the
advertisement had been prepared with the requisite sense of social responsibility.
Therefore, the Chairman ruled that there was no apparent breach of Rules 4 and 5
and Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics.
Accordingly, the Chairman ruled that there were no grounds for the complaint to
proceed.
Chairman’s Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed