"Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa - Protecting Your Standards

Elizabeth Ardens Provocative Perfume / D Breyston / 1695
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Deon Breyston	Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Elizabeth Arden (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd	Respondent

22 Mar 2005

Mr Breyston lodged a consumer complaint against an Elizabeth Arden television commercial for its Provocative perfume product.

The commercial features men melting into a puddle of water at the sight of a woman, presumably wearing the advertised product.

COMPLAINT
The complainant is, inter alia, of the opinion that the commercial is:

Offensive
Sexist and demeaning
Implies that all men are powerless to, and slaves of, sexual provocation.
Promotes the idea that it is okay for women to use sex or sexual innuendo to gain favour, control or acceptance, which is demeaning to women and insulting to men.

RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
In light of the complaint Clause 3.5 of Section II (Gender) of the Code was taken into account.

RESPONSE
The respondent submitted, inter alia, that:

The commercial has been flighted internationally, and this the first and only complaint received against it.
The commercial is an analogy. It was shot in Italy, a country well-known for the flirtatious behavior of men and women. The model is a well-known actress and the truth is that people do stare at her when she passes.
The phrase “men will melt” is a well-used term referring to how men react in the presence of very beautiful women.
A reasonable consumer is likely to perceive the commercial as over the top and unrealistic as it is impossible for men to melt and become water as suggested by the commercial.
The commercial is not sexist or demeaning in any manner.

OPINION
The Directorate requested an opinion from Commission on Gender Equality (CGE), which submitted, inter alia, that:

The advertiser exploits the phrase “men will melt” to promote sales of its product, the effect of which is to make an excessively generalised statement that all men will react the same way to a beautiful woman. This perpetuates a limiting stereotypical perception of both men and women.
The commercial therefore gender stereotypes both men and women by perpetuating the notion of women as sex objects and of men as slaves of sexual provocation.

FURTHER RESPONSE
The Directorate received a further submission from the respondent in response to the opinion from the CGE. In this response the respondent submitted that:

The comment by the CGE is unreasonable and should be ignored.
The underlying message of sexual attractiveness is product relevant. It is not visually or aurally explicit.
Nothing in the commercial gender stereotypes men and woman in any way, or undermines gender equality and respect for equal rights of men and women. A reasonable person would not be offended in the context of the commercial as a whole.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
At a meeting held on 7 February 2005 the Directorate considered the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

The commercial shows a beautiful woman walking through the streets of Rome. As she passes, some of the men who see her melt into puddles of water. The name of the perfume is “Provocative Woman”. The commercial is illustrating the concept of a “provocative woman” through the use of the visual interpretation of a person melting.

The CGE submitted that the commercial gender stereotypes both men and women by perpetuating the notion of women as sex objects and of men as slaves of sexual provocation.

Clause 3.5 of Section II states, inter alia, that gender stereotyping or negative gender portrayal shall not be permitted in advertising, unless in the opinion of the ASA, such stereotyping or portrayal is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. “Gender stereotyping” is defined as, inter alia, portraying a person of a certain gender in a manner that exploits, objectifies or demeans. “Negative Gender Portrayal” refers to advertising that portrays a person of a certain gender in a manner that restricts and entrenches gender roles.

The commercial must be seen in the context of the commercial as a whole, and in the context of the nature and name of the product. The product is a perfume, which is worn by people to make them more appealing to other people. The name “Provocative Woman” implies that this perfume is aimed at women who wish to provoke people, most likely in a sexual context. It is this that has been visually communicated by the commercial.

The concept of “men will melt” is well-known and is used in an acceptable manner to tie up with the concept of the commercial and the name of the perfume. There is nothing degrading or derogatory about melting. “Men will melt “does not imply that men function on basic or animalistic levels. The fact that men will often be attracted to a “provocative woman” does not entrench a gender role or objectify men. It is a social reality that people experience attraction to each other. It is this reality that is portrayed in the visual metaphor.

It is also noted that the hypothetical reasonable consumer is likely to perceive the commercial as over the top and unrealistic as it is impossible for men to melt and become water as suggested by the commercial.

Based on the above the commercial is not demeaning and sexist to men and women and is therefore not in contravention of Clause 3.5 of Section II of the Code.

The complaint is dismissed.