In recent months and years I've had a disconcerting feeling that the ASA is slipping into the role of the 'morality police' rather too enthusiastically, and this decision seems to confirm that.  

If the advertiser had been promoting cologne, it's entirely possible the ASA would not have upheld this decision, even if the ad had been identical. But in this case it wasn't an ad for perfume, or body wash, or suntan lotion, but for vegan soup... and that makes all the difference... apparently.  It turns this into an "offensive and irresponsible" ad, about which one person complained.

What's this all about?

This was a poster ad for Re:Nourish soup. As you can see, it showed a black and white photo of a potentially naked man (though the advertiser said he was actually wearing skimpy pants in real life). He was shown lying on his side facing the camera with his legs slightly apart and his hand resting on his thigh. His chin, mouth and ear were visible at the top of the picture. A large orange bottle of the soup was super-imposed over his genitals. 

The bottom of the ad, in large print, stated “RE:NOURISH. #NOTHING TO HIDE. VEGAN, FRESH SOUP AND 100% RECYCLABLE”.

Complaint

ONE (yes, one) person complained. They believed the ad was likely to be seen by children as it was placed in a busy city centre location. They challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible.

Response

Renourish Ltd said that the picture and the hashtag #nothingtohide were intended to represent their brand standards. They did not consider the nudity gratuitous nor overly sexualised and considered that it did not degrade the model. They said that the model was wearing underwear in the original image and that his pelvic area had been deliberately obscured by the bottle to minimise offence. They said that the poster had appeared for two weeks in two city locations that had been chosen in order to avoid causing offence based on local sensitivities. The posters had not been placed within 100 metres of any schools. 

To spare the ASA's blushes, the advertiser confirmed that they would not run the ad again.

Ruling 

The posters appeared in city centre locations as out of home posters, which were an untargeted medium, and the image was likely to be seen by children and adults. 

The ASA noted that the ad was for soup, and considered the image of a naked man bore no relation to the product advertised. Presumably if it had been for fig-leaf soup, it might have been ok.

The ASA said they considered the pose was only mildly suggestive in nature, but focused on the fact that most of the man’s head was cropped out of the picture, which it thought "invited viewers to focus on his body".

The ASA considered the text #nothingtohide "was likely to be understood as a pun about nudity, which some might also consider sexually suggestive". The ASA didn't elaborate on this, or explain why a pun about nudity would cause "serious or widespread harm or offence". The ASA also said it considered this line, in combination with the placement of the bottle over the man’s naked crotch, would be understood as a clear reference to male genitalia....which is apparently offensive.

Taking the image, the “#nothingtohide” strapline and the placement of the bottle into account, the ASA considered that the ad was likely to have the effect of objectifying the man by using his physical features to draw attention to an unrelated product. 

Censored

The ASA concluded that "the ad was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence to some people".

Which is interesting, because causing serious offence to "some people" is a rather odd way of applying the rules. Ads must either cause serious offence, or widespread offence - the fact this offended "some people" seems to fall short of "widespread offence" so the ASA must consider that this causes "serious offence". A high bar... one might think. But apparently not as high as you might expect based on this ad.

The applicable rules are as follows:  

Rule 1.3 (Social responsibility): "Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society." - This rule is very difficult to challenge because the ASA has broad discretion to apply it, seemingly as a go-to for anything it doesn't like but which isn't covered by a specific rule, from mild nudity to failing to call out that crypto ads should refer to 'capital gains tax'.

Rule 4.1 (Harm and offence). "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: age; disability; gender; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. 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." 

The ASA concluded that the ad did breach the above rules of the CAP Code, and must not appear again.

No offence

Interestingly, despite saying the ad 'objectified' men, the ASA did not investigate for any potential breach of "Rule 4.9: Marketing communications must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence". I am not suggesting that it did breach this rule, but, if we are determined to take offence, I wonder why it wasn't considered, as the slogan was arguably a pun on the size of male genitalia, and if this had not been an image of a man perhaps it might have been at least considered/investigated.

Censorship alive and well in the UK

Almost everything will cause serious offence to "some people", and if that is how we are to live our lives, then the creative industries in the UK are not exactly heading in a great direction. 

I find it hard to believe that the ASA has banned/censored for offending 'some people', or that this ad was deemed to cause "serious offence".

What troubles me more is that this the slow and steady creep of censorship, and the reliance by the ASA on this 'social responsibility' rule almost as an unchallengeable catch-all. It's something I will be keeping a close eye on... while fully clothed, don't worry!

What a difference a decade makes

Ok, I might be exaggerating slightly, but it is interesting to review the ASA's guidance on the use of nudity in outdoor advertising, last published 2011, click here.