- Is the picture offensive to women?
- Should the Opium advert have been banned?
- Are the British to prudish?
- Would this advert have been banned in another country?
Statistical analysis and findings were conducted by in Talking Point, below is a selection of some of the public’s responses to whether the advert should have been banned or not. As you will see there are very mixed reactions from both males and females below:
Certainly not! The ad consists of an image of a beautiful woman. It is no more suggestive than a reclining nude painted by well-respected artists.
Jackie Hyden, UK
The most common reason given by those who are happy to see the poster taken down seems to be fear that they will have to explain this poster to their children!
Brian Binney, UK
Has anyone smelt Opium? My grandmother wears it. Therefore it should be targeted towards her generation. Put a naked old woman with a blue rinse on the next ad. False advertising is the real issue.
Sabrina Ahmed, UK
Surprise, surprise most of the comments praising the ad are from men. Would you be so happy if this was your daughter, wife or sister? This ad is not about the human body, its about some marketing executive (probably a man) trying to earn as much as possible for his client (probably another man). It saddens me, the lengths some people and organisations will go to so they can increase their sales and profits.
Martyn Fribbens, UK
The only offensive thing I can see about this ad is that it makes me wish I had a body as good as Sophie’s. If I had a good body I’d be proud to show it off as well!
Tanya Smithson, UK
It’s a win-win situation for the marketers and advertisers. Even if the ASA doesn’t intervene, the very nature of the ad provokes discussion among its audience; if the ASA does intervene, the media still discuss the controversial ad. The marketers’ objective of stimulating the interest of the consuming public in the product or service they are promoting is achieved.
Mohansigh, India
It seems relatively easy to find someone who will be offended by almost anything. Over-concern for such “feeling” is destroying whatever illusion we retain to free expression.
George Milton, USA
There used to be watershed for watching programmes with unsuitable content whilst younger children are around. Nowadays, it is bad enough the watershed is abused on TV, but at least there is an off button. Here, you can be driving down the road with your kids, and they are subjected to posters of sexual innuendoes everywhere. There is, unfortunately no off button in the streets. What are responsible parents supposed to do these days – blindfold our kids, or discuss sex openly with our 5 and 8 year olds. It is a sad reflection of society that adults cannot take responsibility for keeping their over-sexed minds off the billboards and keep it in the bedroom where it belongs!
Phil, UK
A quick poll of women in my office did not reveal one who was offended by the poster. It seems sad that whilst many complain of the portrayal of size 8 ‘waifs’ in the media, when YSL have the courage to use a more ‘normally’ shaped person, there is an outrage. I have three children and do not have any problem with this image.
Alun Jenkins, UK
Yeah its great but maybe it’s time we saw some naked men in a few ads to kind of even out the balance a bit…
Penny, UK
It seems a lot of girls are offended by it and all the boys think its fantastic. I don’t find the picture offensive but it’s interesting that there are far more ‘sexy’ pictures of women in advertising than men. Why?
Therasa Jazowy, Australia
It’s about time the ASA acted upon its own code of practice, well done ASA. There is a big difference between art and pornography and if the advertisers can’t see the difference, then they should seek advice. Are products so poor that advertisers have to use sexuality to promote them?
Asif Suleman, UK
There is nothing wrong with nakedness at all, but there is a time and a place for everything. Haven’t the advertisers realised that in multi-cultural Britain today some may find this poster very offensive? What is wrong with a woman’s fully clothed figure leaving the rest to the imagination?
Darren Yates, UK
The ad has already done its job by creating much greater public awareness of the Opium brand. By creating such a fuss, the public has played into the hands of the advertising industry. I do not find this ad offensive, but can understand why some people do.
George Richards, UK
I think the poster is GREAT!! I nearly crashed my car, but it’s still brightened up my day!
John Gavey, UK
It’s the only sensible decision the ASA has ever made. Can you imagine the same ad with a man lying naked on his back with his legs wide open? The answer is a resounding NO. Women are never going to gain respect in the boardroom as long as this “porn chic” is allowed on our billboards. It’s got nothing to do with British prudishness – it’s an issue of decency and self-respect.
Kate, UK
A woman lying in the street in such a pose would be arrested for indecent exposure. So why allow an advert to show a picture of this instead?
RP, UK
I think it is pretty ridiculous that something like this is banned. If you go to the Tate Modern, you will find far more explicit material, on full view to children; do we ban this too? When will people realise that the 19th century is long past and that times have changed – some people may not like it, but there’s no escaping the inevitability for now.
Phil, UK
Modern Advertising and its ethics:
Lavish TV commercials and glossy mail shots may be the staples of modern advertising – but for those without deep corporate pockets, shock tactics are more appealing. Pressure groups, charities and governments have employed graphic imagery and blunt slogans to highlight everything from animal cruelty to the dangers of smoking. However, when it comes to posters and magazine adverts, the public usually tends to stomach shocking and even gory imagery if it’s for a good cause. The ASA says people are less likely to complain about ads depending on who issues them and they are far more forgiving of charities. The ASA points to the 1998 campaign by the Commission for Racial Equality, which was it self branded ‘racist’ and ‘offensive’; shocking adverts risk alienating the very people they want to reach. The debate over the merits of these ads also tends to obscure the issues they were intended to highlight. Many companies behind advertisements work on the principle that the whole point of advertising is to be ‘eye-catching’, regardless of the ethics involved.
Advertising under control:
The majority of complaints to the ASA are about misleading advertising (except broadcast advertising, which is responsibility of the Independent Radio Authority (ITC) or the Radio Authority); therefore stopping dishonest or untruthful ads is the main business of the ASA. In 1961, the industry established the ASA under an independent chairman, to adjudicate on complaints about advertising that appeared to British Code of Advertising. 40 years on, advertising in the UK complies with the codes. Because the industry is committed to making self-regulation effective, adverts that break the Codes can be withdrawn without resort to legal bans. Complaints from the public are resolved through the ASA; advertisers who flout the rules can be denied access to newspapers, magazines, and poster sites, direct mail or the Internet. Since 1988, self-regulation has been backed up by statutory powers under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations (CMAR). The ASA can refer advertisers who refuse to cooperate with the self-regulatory system to the Office of Fair Trading for legal action. Television and radio have been controlled through the Broadcasting Act since the start of 1955. The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) is responsible for the CAP Code. The Codes have sought to protect children from commercial exploitation and the Government considers the self-regulatory system to be effective in the interests of consumers. The system also has a high level of recognition from the public and is important to consumer confidence in advertising.
The Code’s general rules: The general rules are much lengthier than this; these are the broad principles that inform the rules.
- All advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.
- All advertisements should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
- All advertisements should respect the principals of fair competition generally accepted in business.
- No advertisements should bring advertising into disrepute.
- Advertisements must conform to the Codes.
- The Codes are applied in the spirit as well as in the letter.
- An advertiser must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims made for a product before the advertisement is submitted.
- No advertisement should cause fear or distress without good reason.
I have no personal objection to the Opium advert, although anyone, whether they think the ad is offensive or not, will admit that it is sexually suggestive. The majority of the population are quite positive towards the Opium advert, but some feel that the advert had just gone too far. However, a similar proportion felt that some people are just too sensitive about the advert. Issues highlighted that younger people tended to be less sensitive in relation to ‘traditionally’ offensive areas, such as sexual images and there seemed to be differences in their views of images that caused offence. It was clear that the reactions from the random samples taken in this report, that the location and type of media were crucial, with particular concern expressed as to whether children would see it and whether groups likely to be offended (such as religious/cultural groups) would see it.
ASA Statistics 2000