The ads in question
Mondelēz’s ad for Philadelphia cheese begins with a woman passing her child to her partner, and then features two fathers who are distracted by Philadelphia cheese on a food conveyor belt, with their children ending up momentarily on the belt before the fathers notice. One of the fathers then says, “let’s not tell mum”. The ASA considered this a breach of new gender stereotyping rules (CAP code rule 4.9 and BCAP code rule 4.14), with the fathers being portrayed as “somewhat hapless and inattentive”, “perpetuating a stereotype that men were inattentive at childcare”.
Volkswagen’s e-Golf car ad involves several shots of (mostly male) individuals involved in adventurous activities – as astronauts, para-athletes, and rock climbers. Finally, a woman is sitting next to a pram, while the e-Golf passed quietly by. The ASA considered this sequence to “juxtapose images of men… carrying out adventurous activities… with women who appeared passive or engaged in a stereotypical care-giving role”, suggesting certain roles and characteristics were “exclusively associated with one gender”.
Nestlé’s ad features a female ballet dancer and male drummers and rowers practicing different skills, with a voice-over emphasising their achievements in “finding a way through” and “pushing upwards until… reaching the top”. The ASA considered viewers would understand the ad’s focus on “equal levels of drive and talent” allowing different individuals to excel in “equally demanding” fields, rather than their specific occupations, and found no breach.
How might future advertising be affected?
Responses to these rulings from the advertising sector have been mixed. While several have spoken in favour, such as Ali Hanan, CEO of Creative Equals, who argued the ads “legitimise outdated gender roles and narrow norms of gender identity”, others have commented that the ASA’s rulings stretch the definition of ‘harm’ too far, and that the body is ‘out of sync with society in general’ in assuming the depiction of individuals in roles which may be stereotypical for their gender is automatically damaging. Striking a middle ground, Zoe Harris, CEO of GoCompare Group, felt that although the rules were accurately enforced, the rules themselves seemed unduly harsh.
Clearcast – a nongovernmental ad-approving body that had cleared all three ads for broadcast – has since released guidance noting it would need to alter the criteria it applied when considering whether advertisements could breach the BCAP and CAP codes.
- Clearcast notes the ASA’s “Advertising Guidance on depicting gender stereotypes likely to cause harm or serious widespread offence” (the Guidance), released in conjunction with the new rules, suggests ads that depict individuals “failing to achieve a task specifically because of their gender” (our emphasis) as being potentially in breach. It considered the Philadelphia advertisement did not imply men were incompetent caregivers ‘specifically’, as the genders could have been reversed for identical comedic value. Notably, Clearcast suggested the appearance of a mother, not depicted as a poor caregiver at the beginning, and the phrase “let’s not tell mum” at the end, may have influenced the ASA’s decision, and a ruling may have been avoided without these scenes.
Clearcast noted that, going forward, it (and advertisers) would need to carefully consider whether viewers could infer a protagonist’s gender was linked to their failings or successes and whether these reflected an existing gender stereotype.
- In respect of the Volkswagen ad, Clearcast noted the ASA’s interpretation of the rules and Guidance was “broader... than anticipated”, and it would therefore need to carefully consider each stage of production, including “at script stage”, to ensure both genders were shown as equally active participants and receive equal on-screen prominence and visibility.
Notably, the ASA considered both the Philadelphia and Volkswagen ads to depict genders unequally, but Clearcast’s suggested solutions for each are notably different, advising either that only one gender should be featured, or both should be featured with equal prominence. As the former option is easier to actualise, there is a possibility that the new rules could lead to an increase in single-sex ads.
- Clearcast felt the roles portrayed in Nestlé’s ad were “not always uniquely associated with one gender”, and that the female ballet dancer’s depiction was “neither delicate nor dainty” (quoting the Guidance) but “tough” and “athletic”. As complaints were not upheld in this instance, Clearcast noted that gender stereotypical roles may be acceptable where the advert’s focus is on the “drive for success”; the ASA’s ruling itself also highlighted the “equal levels of drive and talent” each profession was demonstrated to require.
Although not referenced in the ruling, Nestlé’s was, notably, the only ad in which women were not depicted as caregivers – and although ballet dancing is a stereotypically female role, the dancer’s career focus acted to dispel the stereotype of women as full-time caregivers. It is interesting to consider whether, had the ad focused on a “tough… driven and talented” mother, the same decision would have been reached.
Conclusion
Regardless of the sector’s opinions on the new rules, the ASA has demonstrated that it is prepared to take a harder view on gender stereotyping than previously, and the sector will need to adapt to this. Changes may come in unpredictable ways, however. A large increase in single-sex ads is unlikely to have been the ASA’s intention – the Guidance clarifies that, “subject to the guiding principles”, the Guidance is not designed to prevent ads featuring “one gender only”, including for products developed for and aimed at one gender, but it certainly does not promote single-sex ads. This may well become a reality in order to avoid accusations of unequal prominence.
Interestingly, Mondelēz said in defence of the Philadelphia ad that it “chose two dads to deliberately avoid the typical stereotype of two new mothers with the childcare responsibilities”. This raises the question as to whether the enforcement of the rules can have an unintentional, opposite, and adverse effect.
The ASA’s apparently strong line against ads featuring women in stereotypical caregiving responsibilities and men as struggling with childcare, while showing more lenience towards ads featuring ‘career women’ in conventionally feminine roles, may also lead to fewer parent characters in ads. However, as the Guidance clarifies that gender stereotypes can still be featured in order to be subjected to critique and subversion, advertisers may instead simply swap the genders of common tropes – for example, by depicting more competent father characters.
Ultimately, much still remains unclear as to the scope of the new rules, and further ASA rulings will be instrumental in fleshing out the boundaries. There’s no doubt, however, that brands and agencies will be concerned by what these rulings could mean for existing and future ad campaigns. They will also need to bear in mind the various examples of harmful gender stereotyping published by CAP and the ASA and to take great care in pursuing similar storylines in the future.
Client Alert 2019-208
