Today's decision by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to uphold a single complaint about a silly advert by an obscure small business in Oldham raises a number of troubling questions. But before considering them, let's start by looking at the advert itself and the complaint.

Who was the advertiser and what was the advert?

The advertiser was Great Grass MCR Limited of Oldham, who supply artificial grass. The out-of-home advert appeared on a poster site near their premises in the summer of 2024. The ‘artwork’, if we can call it that, shows a woman wearing flesh-coloured underwear with a potted plant in front of her crotch. She is holding a pair of scissors and the headline “No trimming needed!" in conjunction with a wink emoji conveys the point to any non-horticulturalist that the USP of artificial grass is that it does not need cutting. Who knew? As no advertising agency is named in the ASA adjudication, we have to assume that the advert was home-gown by the advertiser themselves, possibly relying on the creative talents of a teenage staff member. Sadly, as the advert has been the subject of an adverse ASA decision, it will not now be eligible for submission to the Cannes Lions. Shame.

What was the complaint and how did the advertiser defend the advert?

One person - yes, just one - complained that the advert objectified and sexualised women and was therefore offensive, harmful and irresponsible. 

Great Grass were quick to point out that the advert had been on display for several months and must have been seen by hundreds of thousands of people. What does this tell us about the good people of Oldham? Do they have a very high level of tolerance for sexism? Are they free-speech absolutists? Has awareness of the ASA not yet penetrated Oldham? Or do they simply have better things to do with their time than submit complaints to the ASA about a very silly and not very good advert?

Great Grass then went in with a sliding tackle of their own, arguing that not only did the single complaint indicate that most people seeing the ad were not offended, but that they had received 47 positive comments about it. Gosh, its almost as if they were keeping records. However, their killer point was that the ad generated business because people found it amusing and memorable. In other words, the ends justify the means.

Their final argument suggests that Great Grass do not take the ASA entirely seriously. They said that it was wrong to assume that the model was a woman and could equally be a man or a transgender person and furthermore, that the advert made no mention of women or sex, and did not show any obvious female sexual features. Is it just me, or does this read like a two-fingered salute delivered to the ASA and what the advertiser appears to consider its ‘woke agenda’?

Why did the ASA ban the advert?

Noting that the advert appeared in an untargeted medium, the ASA concluded that while the tone may be considered ‘light-hearted’ and image was not explicit, the cropped image and reference to pubic hair “had the effect of demeaning and objectifying women by using their genitalia to draw attention to an unrelated product”. The ASA also believed that the emoji “added to the degrading and mocking tone.” The ASA therefore concluded that the ad objectified women and was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and included a harmful gender stereotype in a way that was likely to cause harm. 

What questions are raised by the adjudication?

The ASA appears to have applied its own rules and guidance in a way that is consistent with previous ASA decisions. In that sense, the decision correct. But if a single complaint can form the basis of serious or widespread offence, does that mean the rules and guidance are out of step with the mores of the British public? In the week following the re-election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, we need to question whether the ASA's attempts to lead the way in fighting harmful gender stereotyping have outpaced public concerns. Trump's well documented misogyny did not prevent him from winning 50.2% of the popular vote. And if the ASA has got ahead of the British public, what does that mean for its credibility as a self-regulatory organisation?

There must also be a concern that the ASA has been played by Great Grass. With minimal spend on production and media, they have now succeeded in having their advert published on the front page of today's London Times. And more significantly, in Lewis Silkin's Adlaw blog! 😜

It is notable that Great Grass did not take the easy way out, and ask for an informal resolution from the ASA so that they could avoid the adverse publicity of a published formal adjudication. Perhaps they weren't offered one, but in any event, they appear to believe that all publicity is good publicity.

This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that Great Grass have displayed a pattern of behaviour almost as obvious as the stripes on the Centre Court at Wimbledon (and you don't get those with artificial grass). In November 2022, the ASA upheld a complaint about another of their adverts with the headline “ARTIFICIAL GRARSE EXPERTS” accompanied by a picture of a woman wearing only her underwear on a ‘lawn’ of artificial grass with copy that stated, “Perfect 365 days a year Get laid by the best”. It appears that the same creative genius lay behind that advert as well. That advert provoked four complaints which were upheld on the same basis as the latest one. 

Cynics amongst you may wonder whether having enjoyed the free publicity generated by the ASA investigation in 2022, Great Grass were not all that sorry that an unknown “member of the public” (wink, wink) complained about their advert in 2024. 

It also seems a shame that no body has asked Great Grass to substantiate their claim to be “The UK's Number 1 Artificial Grass Supplier”. Perhaps they might take that challenge a bit more seriously.

However, while not wanting to defend Great Grass or their adverts, does the ASA need to reconsider its position in this area? If an advert does not use explicit imagery but simply relies on childish, ‘end-of-the-pier’ type humour, and only generates a tiny number of complaints, or even just one, does it really merit being banned for causing serious or widespread offence? 

Or is this rule being hijacked by cynical advertisers to amplify their ‘cheap and cheerful’ advertising?  What do you think? We'd love to hear from you.