Steers / N Wantenaar & Others / 11491
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Mrs Nikki Wantenaar & Others	Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Famous Brands Franchise Company (Pty) Ltd t/a Steers	Respondent

21 Jul 2008

Consumer complaints were lodged against a television commercial for Steers which flighted during July 2008 on various channels.

The commercial commences with a voice over saying, inter alia, “Thanks to an ingenious technological breakthrough this TV set is able to detect exactly where viewer’s eyes are focussed at any given moment.”

The television screen is then divided into two. On the left side of the screen various female models proceed to pose, and on the right hand side a burger is being prepared. A green cursor indicating where the “viewers’ eyes are focussed” highlights the models breasts and buttocks and occasionally moves to images of a burger on the right hand side. At the end it focuses predominantly on the burger.

The voiceover in closing says, inter alia, “Thank you for taking part in our experiment.”

COMPLAINT
In essence, the complainants submitted that the commercial is offensive and objectifies women by placing them in competition with meat. Concerns were also raised about children being exposed to a commercial that is sexual in nature.

RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
In light of the complaint the following clauses of the Code were taken into account:

• Section II, Clause 1 - Offensive advertising

• Section II, Clause 3.5 - Gender

• Section II, Clause 14 - Children

RESPONSE
The advertising agency KINGJAMES, on behalf of the respondent, submitted, that the commercial was never intended to employ shock tactics nor portray women in an overtly sexual manner. It leverages on the “good food” territory and this campaign is structured on the premise that Steers is always the obvious choice.

The commercial uses beautiful women in clichéd poses to catch the viewer’s attention. They compete against Steers food which ultimately succeeds. The commercial is aimed at adults 16+ who are the core market, and it has received a fair number of compliments to date.

The respondent would, however, consider re-looking the television spot to ensure that the commercial is flighted more selectively.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

While the Directorate notes the respondent’s undertaking to “consider” flighting this commercial more selectively, it is not satisfied that it would address all the concerns.

Flighting it at a later time and in more “mature” programming may potentially remove the concern as far as children is concerned, but it would not address issues of gender objectification and offense as identified by the complainants.

Accordingly, the undertaking is not accepted as a resolution to the matter.

Clause 3.5 of Section II states that gender stereotyping or negative gender portrayal is not permitted unless reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society.

Clause 4.1.9 of Section I defines gender stereotyping as “…advertising that portrays a person or persons of a gender in a manner that exploits, objectifies or demeans.”

When deliberating on such issues the Directorate has certain key factors to consider. These include, inter alia, whether the image used has product relevance, whether or not the particular models are coerced or appear distraught, and whether or not the models are reduced to a sexual body part. In addition, cognisance is taken of the relevant surrounding circumstances.

In the matter Jagermeister / K Bindon / 10794 (23 April 2008), the Directorate received a complaint against a cinema commercial for Jagermeister, which featured three women ordering shots at a bar. The Directorate ruled that while the respondent’s intention was to utilize humour to convey the fact that the product should be consumed ice-cold, this did not automatically defend against gender objectification and on this basis the complaint was upheld. Furthermore, that the commercial disembodied the women and reduced their worth to just erect nipples.

In Mavericks / M Richards and Another / 8463 (13 March 2007), an advertisement that only featured the back of a model’s legs with a payoff line that read “a true gentleman always removes his cigar in the presence of a lady”. In this instance, the Directorate regarded the following factors as relevant to an enquiry into the objectification of women:

• Product relevance,
• Active versus passive sexuality;
• Overt versus subtle sexuality; and
• The dismembering of the image of a woman to show only her sexual parts.

In a further ruling of the Advertising Standard Committee, in the matter of DTSV / C Lichtenstein (30 November 2004), the committee stated that where a woman’s breasts were compared to an edible object, namely fried eggs, the image of the two fried eggs on the bikini top suggested that women’s breasts are food. Women and food are thus consumable objects. In this manner, the billboard objectified and exploited the female body.

From the rulings mentioned above, it becomes clear that it is not the depiction of a woman’s body that is problematic, especially in the context of the advertised product. What is of relevance is the manner of depiction. The ASA has on various occasions, accepted that where the use of a woman’s body is product relevant, or relevant to the story line of the commercial, it is acceptable provided that it is within certain boundaries.

In the commercial at hand, the screen is split in two and women are shown on the left side of the screen and a burger on the right. A green cursor focuses on the women’s legs, breasts, buttocks, and at the end of the commercial predominantly highlights the burger.

The use of a cursor focussed only on the women’s legs, breasts and buttocks further perpetuate the communication that a woman is only worth looking at in parts traditionally associated with sex or lust. This undoubtedly, portrays them in a manner which depicts them as sexual objects. Furthermore, the women are used in a sexualised and gratuitous manner as they are irrelevant to the product being advertised.

The fact that images of the women are shown alongside a burger, with the cursor focussing on their cleavages and buttocks draws a comparison that women’s bodies are objects of consumption.

It is accepted that the overall plot is to convey that the Steers burger “wins” at the end, but the concern lies with the fact that the models are left to compete with meat and that the only criteria used is their physical appearance.

Based on the above, the commercial portrays women in a stereotypical manner, implying that they are only good to “ogle” at.

The commercial therefore contravenes Clause 3.5 of Section II of the Code.

Accordingly the respondent is required to:

• Withdraw the commercial in its current format;
  
  
• The process of withdrawing the commercial must be actioned with immediate effect;
  
  
• The process of withdrawing the commercial must be completed within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide; and
  
  
• The commercial may not be used again in future.

The complaints are upheld.

It is not necessary to consider the Clause 1 and Clause 14 of Section II at this time.