Rustlers

[ailbhe]

The first part of the response I got from the Advertising Standards Authority when I complained about this ad - you might like to go back and refresh your memory.

Edited 27th Feb to add: http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_42517.htm

Number of complaints: 219

[(a) and (b) just summarise the two ads - one's a burger ad, as described by me, and the other is a chicken tikka ad.]

The ads were cleared by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre with an ex-kids restriction, which meant that they should not be shown in or around programmes made for or specifically targeted at children."

Issue
1. The majority of the viewers complained that the ads were offensive, sexist and demeaning [...] equated them to pieces of meat.

2. Fewer viewers complained that, by showing the woman's attitude change from one of apparent hostility to one of apparent sexual compliance, the ads perpetuated the idea wthat women said "no" when they meant "yes." The viewers believed there were undertones of sexual abuse and the ads could encourage date rape.

3. Fewer still viewers [...] complained that the ads were unsuitable for broadcasting at times when children might have been watching. [elided text includes reference to JUMANJI, definitely a kid film].

Response
Rustlers said that their target market was 18-34 year old men. They asserted that the ads were intended as a fantastical portrayal of their primary target market's life; they were not intended to portray a real-life situation. They argued that the ads gave a tongue-in-cheek look at Rustlers' core benefit: instant gratification. They pointed out that the man seduced a woman in 70 seconds and believed that was unrealistic; they asserted that the audience was never led to believe that the seduction was a reality. They argued that the fantastical element of the ads was confirmed by the line "If only everything in life was as quick as Rustlers" and said the ads were intended to illustrate 'getting to the good bit quicker.'

Rustlers asserted that the image of the woman in her underwear was an integral part of the story and was therefore relevant. [Pointed out ads were not otherwise nudey or rudey, and there's loads of sex in advertising anyway]; they believed the roles played by the man and woman were recognised stereotypes. They asserted that the man was portrayed as shallow and relying on fantasy to fulfill his ambitions, whereas the woman was more sensible and less forward. They asserted that the man had invited her back to his flat because he liked her and she had agreed to go back; they pointed out that the woman did not say "no" to any suggestion made by the man.

There's more, but I'm not going in to it now - my hands hurt from typing that out, even with all the editorial square brackets.

Comments

[hilarityallen.livejournal.com]

On Wednesday, the ASA will put it up on their website, so you could post a link if you wanted to.