Sex sells… but not when the ASA gets out of bed on the wrong side...

This week, the ASA issued two rulings on this topic, one against Boohoo.com and one against Box Menswear Ltd.

Boohoo.com 

Boohoo.com are no stranger to controversy. In 2019, their email communications aimed at marketing their new nude clothes collection used the phrase “SEND NUDES”. That was branded irresponsible by the ASA. The ad in question this time around was for a product listing for a T-shirt. The ad, seen in November 2021, featured a model wearing an oversized T-shirt. Despite promoting a T-shirt, the model was seen wearing nothing else apart from a thong-style bikini, socks and trainers. The model was shown on the website in a range of poses, some of which  caused quite a stir with one member of the public. The first pose showed a rear view, in which the model was seen kneeling. The second showed the model sitting on the ground with her legs open, and the third ‘offending’ image showed the model lifting the T-shirt, exposing her side.

One person complained that the ad objectified and sexualised women and challenged it on the grounds of being offensive, harmful, and irresponsible. Boohoo argued that the images in question were part of their swimwear category and stated the model was wearing a T-shirt with a bikini. They went on to state that their ad “Reflected the diversity of women in society and their customer base.”

Nevertheless, the ASA upheld the ruling against Boohoo on the basis it objectified and sexualised women and was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence breaching CAP code rules 1.3, 4.1 and 4.9. They argued the shots were “sexually suggestive”, as there was heavy emphasis placed on the model revealing parts of her body in comparison with focusing on the product itself. Moreover, it was stated that neither the “partial nudity nor the bikini bottoms were relevant to the product and that the images did not show the product as it would usually be worn.”

You can find the full ruling here: Boohoo.com UK Ltd - ASA | CAP

Box Menswear

In the interests of gender balance, the underwear retailer, Box Menswear also got the ASA hot under the collar this week.

The underwear retailer sent three separate email communications in November 2021. The emails all featured topless men, none of whom were leaving much to the imagination.

The first email featured a subject line, “How did this happen so fast?” and an image of a topless man wearing pink briefs in which the outline of his penis was visible.

The second email featured a subject line, “Important Announce [sic] – Black Friday 2021” and showed a man stood in a shower, wearing wet, white briefs that showed his penis. There was also a black and white image further down the email that featured a topless man wearing white briefs in which the outline of his penis was visible.

The third email featured a subject line, “The website is OPEN. GO!”. There was an image of a topless man, with his arms across his chest, wearing mesh boxers,  through which his penis was visible. Separately, within the same email there was an image which featured two different men wearing tracksuit bottoms in which the outline of both of their penises were visible.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, a complaint was made to the ASA. The complainant believed that the ads were sexually explicit and offensive. Box Menswear Ltd argued it was a men’s retailer, selling underwear, and that the ads were made to appeal to the LGBTQ+ community. They said that the ads targeted subscribers on their mailing list or people who had visited/purchased a product and so were already aware of the means the retailer used to promote their products. 

The ASA did not uphold the ad in the first email on the grounds it “was consistent with that presented on the Box Menswear website.” They said it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread harm and offence to the target audience. In contrast, the complaints against emails two and three were upheld by the ASA. The images in email two and three were deemed to be of a sexually explicit nature and breached rules around harm and offence, specifically rule 4.1 of the CAP Code. The ASA considered these were more sexually explicit than the images which are featured on the advertiser’s website. More obviously, the visibility of the model’s penises was sexually explicit content, and the way in which the images were styled created a visual emphasis on the model’s penises, rather than the boxers themselves. Lastly, the ASA said that the subject lines in the second and third emails did not make it clear the ads would be of a sexually explicit nature. Interestingly, unlike in the Boohoo ruling that involved scantily clad women, the ASA did not consider that these Box Menswear ads objectified the men featured.

You can find the full ruling here: Box Menswear Ltd - ASA | CAP

Take-home message

Sex sometimes sells, but advertisers should exercise caution when marketing their products to ensure their ads are not so sexually explicit that they are likely to cause serious or widespread offence, even among a targeted audience, and that they do not cause offence by objectifying women.