Watchdog fails to satisfy

This is the judgement made by the Advertising Standards Authority, on which sits Jean Coussins, the director of the Alcohol Industry’s Portman Group on a complaint against a cinema advertisement for the Suffolk brewer Greene King. It speaks for itself: Date: 29th September 2004 Media: Cinema Sector:
Alcohol Public Complaint From: Kent

Complaint:

Objection to a cinema commercial, for beer, that appeared before a certificate 12A film. The commercial began with a woman on a bed reading a book. As the door of the bedroom opened, the woman turned on a CD player, threw a scarf over the bedside lamp, put on a blindfold, wrapped her wrists in scarves attached to the bed posts and said “surprise”. A dog then appeared; it looked at the woman then at the camera. As the dog licked the woman’s feet, the woman giggled and sighed. The scene then cut to a man in a pub; he looked at his watch and then began to drink a pint of beer. A voice-over and text on the screen both stated “Greene King IPA. Could you say no to another?” The complainant objected that the commercial was offensive, degrading to women and unsuitable to appear before a certificate 12A film. Codes Section: 5.1, 47.2 (Ed 11)

Adjudication: Complaint not upheld

The advertisers said they relied on the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) to apply a suitable age limit to the commercial; they believed the 12A rating would be acceptable to the general public. The advertisers pointed out that, because the commercial was for an alcoholic drink, their targets were films with a wide adult audience. They said they would not run the commercial again. The CAA said it had not received any complaints about the commercial. It explained that it did not consider the commercial to be either offensive or degrading to women; it believed the humour played equally with stereotypes of men and women and made fun of the scenario of sex without being sexually explicit. It stated that children of 12 years of age and upwards were aware that adults played sexual games and believed, in a society increasingly at risk of sexually transmitted diseases, a commercial that depicted an alternative to penetrative sex was not irresponsible.

The Authority noted the situation depicted in the commercial was a parody of sexual foreplay. It considered, however, that because the tone of the commercial was lighthearted, most people would understand the humour of the situation. The Authority noted the woman was tied up but considered that, because it was obvious she had placed herself in that position intentionally and was in control of the situation, the commercial was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen to demean women. It also considered that, because children aged 12 years of age and over were likely to be aware adults played sexual games, the commercial was unlikely to cause mental or moral harm to children. The Authority concluded that the commercial was acceptable.

Comment

In its eminently sensible response to Ofcom’s consultation on alcohol advertising, written before the publication of this extraordinary judgement, IAS makes the point that it would be best were all advertisements based on lifestyle were avoided. In the case of Greene King’s lubricious material this would avoid the ancient defence that the effort was intended to be amusing. Without a life-style ban, this defence is often effective. Firstly, it puts any complainant on the back foot, defending himself against the implication of being a fool who cannot understand the joke, rather like the bishop who wrote a tract against Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels on the ground that the book was clearly a pack of lies. But the defence also assumes that a nod in the direction of humour cleanses the item in question of any offensiveness.

The judgement is a gem of its kind, enormously and unintentionally funny. We are asked to believe that the commercial “made fun of the scenario of sex without being sexually explicit”. The implication of the advertisement was that the woman had prepared herself for light bondage sex and got the dog instead of her husband. We see the dog; she is merely aware of having her feet licked. The funniest idea in the judgement is that, in a world where children are aware of the sexual games adults play and “in a society increasingly at risk of sexually transmitted diseases”, it was “not irresponsible” to depict “an alternative to penetrative sex”.

As anyone watching the commercial is aware, the husband is not about to fulfil his wife’s mildly kinky fantasy because he in is the pub, so the only alternative on offer is a sexual service provided by the retriever.

The judgement is exceptional in its stupidity, no more so when it concludes that it in no way demeans women. It may be that the female character in the advertisement initiates the bondage game but it is reasonable to assume that she expected the attentions of her husband rather than the family pet.