Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
An email, dated 21 October 2015, sent by pitchcare.com on behalf of Etesia UK Ltd, a horticultural equipment company, stated "Meet the Etesia Calendar Girls at SALTEX! ...at the NEC Birmingham". The email included a picture of two pouting women wearing cut-off shorts, leaning on a motorised lawnmower. A second picture, linked to and taken from an embedded video in the email, showed the same women in their underwear with one woman holding a hedge trimmer. The embedded video, filmed at the calendar photo shoot, featured the two underwear-clad models posing on or using gardening equipment.
Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the images in the email were offensive, because they were sexist and objectified women.
2. The ASA challenged whether the embedded video was offensive, because it was sexually suggestive and objectified women.
Response
Etesia UK Ltd said that it was never their intention to cause offence and that, to ensure the acceptability of the content and the welfare of the models, the production of the calendar and video was carried out by an entirely female team.
1. The advertiser explained that they produced a limited edition calendar and the two models featured in the calendar were available to sign copies at the trade-only exhibition promoted in the email. They said the calendar did not include any form of nudity and was only sent to customers by request.
The picture in the email of the women wearing shorts was taken from the calendar and the second picture was an image from the embedded link in the email to a video of the photo-shoot. Etesia UK believed neither image was sexist and pointed out that the second image had been used by 17 trade publications in non paid-for editorial articles and had also been used by one magazine as their front cover. They said they had received one complaint from a customer about the email and calendar, which the customer had mistakenly thought included female nudity. They said that it was not unusual for marketing communications of this type to be used in their industry.
Pitchcare.com explained that they sent Etesia UK e-newsletters to their database, a service that they had provided for the advertiser for a number of years. They said that they had raised their concern with Etesia’s advertising agency as to whether the content of the email was suitable for the intended market, but were assured by the agency that Etesia UK wanted the email sent as it was. Pitchcare believed that, although the email included pictures of the models, the main focus was the company’s range of professional care products and a forthcoming industry show and there was no legitimate reason for refusing the client. They received two complaints about the email; one complainant said they intended to contact the ASA.
2. Etesia UK believed that the video, which was a behind the scenes look at a fun photo shoot, was not degrading to women having been made at the suggestion of the two models featured in the calendar. They said the video contained no nudity or sexual innuendo, was not pornographic and was in keeping with similar videos made by other companies. They explained that the video was planned to be used only once for the initial launch of the calendar.
Pitchcare.com said their response in relation to point 1 also covered the video.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that recipients would understand that the calendar image and the video photo-shoot embedded in the email were included to publicise the models’ appearance at the trade fair rather than the horticultural products sold by the advertiser. The email subject line and headline text in the body of the email both stated “Meet the Etesia Calendar Girls at Saltex” and included details of the trade fair. However, although the images in the email were a reasonable representation of the calendar being advertised, we nonetheless considered that some recipients were unlikely to expect such images in a marketing communication from a horticultural equipment company.
We noted the women in the first picture were wearing revealing cut-off shorts, with their bottoms pushed out and pouting directly at the camera. Although the pose was not overtly sexual, we considered that it was likely to be seen as sexually suggestive. The second picture showed the women in revealing lace underwear, with one woman holding a hedge trimmer, and text next to it stated “See a ‘behind-the-scenes’ video of the photo shoot using the link here …”. Although the context of the image was clear, we nonetheless considered that showing the women in their underwear while using gardening equipment for no other reason than a calendar shoot, presented the women as sexual objects.
We acknowledged that the images were relevant to both the nature of the calendar and the models' appearance at the trade fair, but considered that they were likely to be seen as objectifying women and were therefore sexist. For those reasons, we concluded that the email was likely to cause serious offence to some recipients.
On this point, the email breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
(Harm and offence).
2. Upheld
We acknowledged that the embedded video was filmed at the calendar photo shoot and was included in the email to promote the opportunity to meet the models at the trade fair, but considered that the scantily clad models had no relevance to the advertiser’s products featured in the video.
The women were shown posing on or near horticultural equipment in either their underwear or bikinis, or with their tops removed, although still wearing bras. Two scenes featured the women, viewed side on, individually sitting on a lawn mower. They were wearing tops, high heel shoes and brief underpants, which revealed their buttocks. The camera zoomed into the buttock area before moving upwards. The women, both wearing skimpy underwear, appeared together on the lawn mower, one sitting with the other standing behind her, which emphasised the standing model’s groin area, before the camera panned out. Towards the end of the video one of the models was briefly seen adjusting her breasts and at the end of the video the women blew kisses at the camera.
We considered that the overall impression created by the video was that it was sexual in tone with the women portrayed as sexual images and their physical features used to draw attention to the products. We considered that the video was likely to be seen as objectifying, and therefore demeaning to, women. We concluded that, because the video was sexually suggestive and degrading to women, it was likely to cause serious offence to some recipients.
On this point, the email breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
(Harm and offence).
Action
The email must not appear again in its current form. We told Etesia UK Ltd to ensure their ads did not cause serious offence.
