Ethical advertising challenge feedback
So how did you go on the challenge I posed in my last blog post?
The fact is that two of them were convicted for discriminating sexes.
The ad above for Boxer (above) was convicted on the grounds that he is posed as a sexobject which can be offending to men. The company used a humoristic approach in the ad but the ombudsman did not find it funny. So how can it be reasonable to have a law like that, you might ask? Are the underwear companies, for example just going to show their products on dolls in ads? Well as with most rules, there are exceptions. You can show men or women in underwear/swim suits and the like IF it is related to your product! That is why Stadiums ad (below) did not get convicted.
The ad for AJ (above) was the other one convicted by the Swedish advertising ombudsman. The motivation was that the woman was posed as a sex object (with unbuttoned pants and dirty shirt) without any real connection to the product, she did not need to be there according to them. In my opinion she could easily be a mechanic.
With NivoFlex (below) the ombudsman argued that the woman posed in the ad could be a user of the dance platforms so they were not convicted.
What do you think of the ombudsman’s reasoning and Sweden’s ethical advertising practices in these cases?