Lynx Bullet cleared of sexist campaign
Share
The advertising watchdog has dismissed complaints that a recent campaign for Lynx Bullet bodyspray was sexist.
The campaign included TV and cinema advertising, and outdoor and online activity. The TV ad shows a man meeting fully-clothed women who, on a second look, appear unclothed. When the man sprays himself with the Lynx Bullet he appears only in his underpants to a woman looking back at him. The voiceover says: “Never miss an opportunity with the new Lynx Bullet. Pocket pulling power.”
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 41 complaints with several saying the TV ad was offensive and demeaning to women.
Some also complained that it was not appropriate to be broadcast when children might be watching. The TV ad had been cleared by Clearcast with a restriction on being shown during children’s programming.
Similar criticism was levelled at the cinema and outdoor elements of the campaign. Some complainants also accused the ads of glamorising guns and violence by linking the bullet-shaped body spray with sex.
Unilever defended the campaign, created by Bartle Bogle Hegarty, saying that the key theme for the majority of Lynx ads was the attractiveness of the product to women. The ads were never designed “to promote predatory behaviour or to reinforce negative stereotypes” about women and that the women portrayed were “confident and in control”.
The ASA said the ad depicted a clearly fictional situation and used humour “to depict a scenario that took place only in the man’s mind”.
It also dismissed any link with glamorising guns as beyond the brand name there was no other reference to guns or shooting.
Readers' comments (2)
Matt | Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:09 pm
Yes, I'm male and probably have a different world view to some, but I'm getting increasingly interested by what appears to be a widening gulf between what is and isn't acceptable when advertising; specifically when dealing with gender portrayal.
It's “OK” for men to appear weak, inept, bumbling fools for the audience's amusement of selling domestic products (for example) - the hopeless man unable to work a washing machine, can't cook so HAS to use a microwave etc - portrayal of men as weak and inferior is OK it seems. Why no-one has a problem with this isn't a topic I'll go into. Potentially a huge double standard though. I'd even go so far as to claim these types of ads are damaging to the sexual equality movement.
Do we have to knock men down a level, rather than increase the status of women to be equal?
For there to be equality, surely the rules have to be the same? If men are comfortable with having the mickey taken, for me it would suggest they are confident and secure in who they are, and can accept it’s just a bit of fun.
Maybe sexual equality bodies do complain against ads where males are portrayed in less than positive ways, but such stories rarely see press coverage. I’ve certainly never seen any.
If we live in a world where equal rights campaigners feel the need to speak out against portrayal of women as attractive and/or sexually active, confident beings, for fear of being subjugated by men, how far have we really come since the burning of bras? More of a rhetorical question I suppose.
Yes, there are predatory males and we don't want to encourage any kind of objectification. But something in the way we educate ourselves to try and be enlightened by equality must be failing.
Protect women and knock men? Possibly a bit jaded?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:37 pm
Is it really right that women are on television adverts with their breasts and bottoms on show? What about equality between the sexes? It seems like women are just seen as sexual objects and its not right. Its also unfair when your watching tv with your partner and then a half naked woman comes on. It makes you feel not pretty and under pressure to look your best because air brushed woman on adverts like lynx are seen by your man. Not nice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment