Advertisment
The advertisement was seen on the homepage of the advertisers’ own website and featured an image of a woman dressed in a shirt which was tied at the front to replicate a crop top. The woman was also wearing mini shorts with a tool belt around her waist, a hardhat on her head and a spirit level slung over her right shoulder.
Text alongside the image stated:
“Looking for a trusted, professional roofing contractor in Dublin? Maybe you require a free, no-obligation quote on a job that needs attention? Or perhaps you’d like some work completed? MJ Roofing & More provides expert roofing services to commercial and domestic clients across Dublin. We have extensive experience in the industry and a wide range of satisfied clients we’re proud to have supported.”
A push-button beneath this invited consumers to contact the advertisers.
Complaint
The complaint considered that the advertisement in question featured an image of a woman dressed in attire that was overtly sexualized, including mini hot-pants shorts, a shirt tied into a belly top, a belt with construction tools, and a hard hat, while holding a spirit level. They said that the construction company was not selling any items of clothing that the woman was modelling.
The complaint raised being concerned by the use of sexualized imagery to promote a roofing company and being particularly concerned about the impact of such advertising on young people. They held that exposure to sexualized content could reinforce harmful gender norms and contribute to the objectification of women. They added that this not only perpetuated misogyny but also undermined efforts to promote respectful and inclusive attitudes towards gender and sexuality.
They believed that advertising had a powerful influence on societal attitudes and behaviours, and that it was essential that advertisers and marketers hold standards of decency and respect in their messaging. They considered that use of sexualised imagery in advertising not only reflected poorly on the professionalism of the roofing industry but also sent the wrong message to consumers, particularly young people.
Response
The advertisers said that they noted from the complaint that objection was taken due to the attire that the woman on the advertisement was wearing and that it was alleged that she was dressed in an overtly sexualized attire. They said they would take issue with this description and said that women were free to dress as they liked in today’s society.
The advertisers said they would submit that unless the clothing was such to offend today’s standards of modesty and decency, it should not be categorised as “sexualised”, especially when no sexualised commentary was attached to the image, and no other context directed the viewer to consider that the product being advertised had any link to sex. They said they would submit that the sexualisation of the image was one within the subjective mind of the complainant, and that the complainant’s own view of what constituted sexualised clothing should not be relied upon to hide the image of a woman who, should she decide to wear the clothing in the advertisement, would be freely permitted to do so in society. The advertisers said they would submit that it was not the purpose of the Code to dictate taste or to promote any ideology that the complainant appeared to be advancing in their complaint.
The advertisers said that whilst the attire may not be fully typical of those working within the industry (although the woman was clearly identifiable as working within the industry), they would submit that the image did not cross the boundary into material which was offensive on grounds of gender or any of the other grounds mentioned in section 3.17 of the Code. They said they would accept that there was perhaps an element of irony or humour by using an image that would not typically be seen, but that they would deny that the image was demeaning or overly stereotypical, and that it remained within the boundaries of freedom of expression and artistic interpretation.
The advertisers explained that the roofing industry was an industry which was overwhelmingly filled with male employees, and they would submit that an image of a woman in this role suggested that women were welcome in the industry. They said they did not feel that more typical attire would have made this point as clearly. The advertisers clarified that there was no coarseness or innuendo as proscribed by section 3.20 of the Code.
The advertisers said they were surprised by the complainant’s reference to the effect on children as the advert was for a roofing company which, they said, was an unlikely subject for children to be searching for on the internet. They said they did not believe that the image would have the effect or impact that the complainant suggested it would and explained that the image in question had been used by the company since its inception 8 years before. The advertisers said that this was the first complaint to the ASA that they had received in relation to the matter.
The advertisers said that they were approached regularly by both male and female customers and members of the public who commented positively on the image. They said that the cost to rebrand the company’s image would be substantial and said they would submit that it would be disproportionate to require the company to remove the image at this stage.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Committee noted the complaint that, among other things, the advertisement featured an image of a woman dressed in attire that was overtly sexualised. The Committee noted an understanding in the complaint response of there being two elements set out in this aspect of the complaint: firstly, the complaint that objection was taken due to the attire that the woman on the advertisement was wearing and, secondly, that it was alleged that she was dressed in overtly sexualized attire. The complaint was noted to also refer to the use of sexualised imagery.
Noting that it was submitted in the response that an image of a woman in the role concerned suggested that women were welcome in the industry concerned and it was not felt that more typical attire would have made this point as clearly, the Committee considered this was not sufficiently relevant in the context of an advertisement solely for providing roofing services using contractors. Furthermore, the Committee did not agree with the contention that the woman portrayed was clearly identifiable as working within the industry, particularly due to portrayal of a person dressed for roofing work and what would be reasonably considered as lack of full and appropriate health and safety protective clothing for negotiating exteriors on potentially hazardous roofing contracts.
The Committee also considered the complaint of the use of sexualised imagery, and they considered the pose adopted in the image and the likelihood of it being appropriately related to or representative of roof contracting.
The Committee also considered the requirement for compliance with the Code being assessed in the light of a marketing communication’s probable effect when taken as a whole and in context, with particular attention having been paid to the location and context of the marketing communication, the nature of the advertised product and the nature, content and form of any associated material made available or action recommended to consumers (2.03).
While noting the submission in the response that it was not the purpose of the Code to dictate taste or to promote any ideology that the complainant appeared to be advancing in their complaint, the Committee were mindful that the Code incorporated a requirement for adjudication being on the basis of the likely effect on consumers, when taken as a whole or in context, not the advertiser’s intention (3.05), and that provocative copy or images should not be used merely to attract attention (3.20).
In the context of a marketing communication intended to promote providing contractors for roofing services, and when taking all the matters arising into account, the Committee considered that the marketing communication’s likely effect on consumers, when taken as a whole or in context, was one of an impression of provocative copy and was published merely to attract attention unrelated, directly and indirectly, to the service offering. Accordingly, the Committee determined that the material was in breach of Code section 3.20.
