Call of the Mild: M&S, a model’s buttocks and the ASA

Do you have any idea of the difference between something ‘overtly’ sexy and something ‘mildly’ sexy? It’s not easy, is it? My ‘mild’ might be your ‘overt’. I might not care whether my children are exposed to sexual imagery, whereas you might find it deeply distasteful.

But in a society grappling with big issues like the sexualisation of children, these are important areas. And it’s an area where advertising has to be careful, lest it provoke politicians in search of a cheap bandwagon.

It was precisely into this area that M&S has strayed, with a series of digital poster ads featuring Rosie Huntington-Whiteley modelling lingerie.

Last week, however, the ASA knocked out complaints that the ads were ‘overtly sexual, degrading to women and reinforced sexual stereotypes’.

“Oh no, they’re not,” said the ASA: “they’re only ‘mildly’ sexual, not ‘overtly’ sexual.”

There is, of course, something inherently funny about such decisions. You can imagine an ASA staffer in the pub after a hard day: “Yeah, well, we spent all afternoon looking at these bloody ads – didn’t even get a break for a cuppa. I’m fed up with having to stare at Rosie’s buttocks.”

Indeed. A study of the ASA ruling reveals that it hinged on two things: one, whether she was alone; and two, the way she rotated to show her buttocks.

Apparently, being alone turns the ‘sexuality’ thermostat down a notch or two (not everyone might agree with that), while the buttock rotation was of such a type as to be only ‘mildly’ sexual.

You have to wonder: what kind of rotation would have made it ‘overtly’ sexual? And how much debate was there before they hit on the word ‘mild’? What about ‘mellow’, ‘benign’ or ‘bland’ (thanks thesaurus.com)? Must be fun deciding those kinds of things – a lot more fun than the po-faced style of the report suggests.

Along the way, as if to administer a gentle slap on the wrists to members of the public who are quick to take offence, the ASA points out that, not to put too fine a point on it, lingerie ads are bound to feature nudity and suggest sexuality. It also suggests that there’s a difference between ‘modelling’ lingerie and, I suppose, ‘writhing’ around in it.

You can’t imagine the photographer saying: “Tone it down, luv. I want more mild – otherwise we’ll get banned by the ASA.”

As well as debating the finer points of buttock rotation, the ASA has been heavily involved in the decision to allow smokeless e-cigarettes to advertise on TV, starting with E-Lites which went live on ITV, C5 and some satellite channels last week.

However you look at it, this is pretty radical; cigarettes having been banished from TV 30-odd years ago and from all advertising a decade ago.

This is not the place to get into the argument about the rights and wrongs of advertising e-cigarettes, except to note that the dividing line hinges on whether they are a) harmful (possible, since they contain nicotine but as yet unproven) and b) an aid to quitting (although the decision whether to licence them as such has yet to be taken), or a product that might actually lead to an increase in cigarette smoking – as in soft drug consumption leading to hard drugs.

What of the ad itself? I like it. It’s nicely acted and observed.

It features a baby taking his first steps – in fact a gangnam-style dance. Dad, meanwhile, has popped out for a quick puff. “So, what have I missed?” he says as he returns to his stunned family.

To me, it speaks to an underlying truth, which is that smokers risk cutting themselves off from social discourse, family and so on. It’s entertaining and neither promotes nor glorifies smoking.

Nevertheless, it reminds me when, in the 80s, Big Tobacco was hell bent on promoting what its scientists called New Smoking Material – i.e. something meant to be less harmful.

In the UK at any rate, NSM was ridiculed by a brilliant campaign based on the line “It’s like jumping from the 27th floor instead of the 36th.”

Lawyers and bankers’ bonuses

One of the joys of advertising is the way it shines a light on corners of the world you know little about. Who knew, for example, that hikers had the choice of so many sat navs (hat-tip to Trail magazine)?

Now anyone who reads the financial pages will know that the upcoming bankers’ bonus season is likely to be fraught and, to many, a severe disappointment (yeah, we so feel for them).

But never fear, bankers, help is at hand in the shape of lawyers Slater & Gordon. Thanks to an advertorial in City A.M. (that you can read here), your friendly legal rottweilers will pursue your employer to the ends of the earth to obtain those millions that you believe are so rightfully yours.

Naturally, they don’t say it quite like that, preferring to talk about ‘broken promises’.

Personally, it makes me want to complain to the ASA on the grounds of decency and taste. But it won’t get me anywhere.

I’ll console myself with Oscar Wilde’s aphorism about hunting: the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.