I was trawling on the internet and I came across this article talking about the response from the Advertising Standards Board to That Nandos Advertisement

Here’s a copy paste:

“Nando’s Australia Pty Ltd (Cinema pole-dancer)

(EXTRACT OF RULING JUNE 2007)- Complaint Dismissed

EXAMPLE OF COMPLAINTS

“The ad is almost as repulsive and sordid about men as it is about women. It exploits the current stupid notion that sexual exploitation is “empowering” for women in order to use sex to sell chicken. It is not empowering to see women represented as lust objects, nor is it remotely funny. It is just unspeakably demeaning.”

THE DETERMINATION

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). The Board noted that the advertisement had been classified M by CAD which meant that it could only be shown after 8.30pm and during the week from 12-3pm. The Board noted that the advertisement had only been shown at the cinema prior to an M classified movie which means that the movie is recommended for persons over the age of 15. The Board also noted the diverse issues raised in complaints about this advertisement.

The Board noted the complaints about the inappropriateness of stripping or pole dancing being shown in conjunction with images of a happy family and the disconnect between poledancing or stripping and family values. The Board considered that poledancing was not incompatible with family values and that there was no breach of the Code in this depiction.

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement vilified men by depicting the man at a pole dancing show, paying for the woman to dance. The Board considered that the man was depicted in a very sterile manner and not in a way that made him appear sexist or sleasy. The Board noted that the advertisement also depicted a man as the father with his family. The Board considered that the advertisement did not vilify men by showing a man enjoying a pole dancing show.

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement vilified women by depicting the woman poledancing and therefore as a stripper or a prostitute. The Board considered that the depiction of the woman pole dancing was not a depiction of a sleasy or overtly sexual woman and that there was no suggestion that the woman was a prostitute. The Board also noted that poledancing is becoming more mainstream with it currently being a popular form of exercise. While noting the change in attitude towards pole dancing the Board agreed that this change was probably not widespread in the community. Regardless of this the Board considered that this depiction of pole dancing was fairly clinical and not overtly sexual and was therefore not vilifying of women or inappropriately sexual.

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement’s reference to ‘nando fix patches’ amounted to a stereotypical portrayal of sex workers as addicts. The Board agreed that most members of the community would not see that there was any such suggestion in the advertisement.

The Board noted many complaints about the depiction of a mother and wife as a pole dancer/prostitute and considered that this vilified women. The Board considered that this advertisement depicted a strong in control woman who went about her work in a professional manner (wearing a suit to work), enjoyed her work, enjoyed being ’sexy’ and enjoyed time with her family. The Board considered that this advertisement depicted the woman as being a strong and empowered woman. The Board considered that the advertisement did not vilify women by portraying a woman in both roles or in a manner that demonstrated that she was ’sexy’. The Board considered that such a depiction was not improper as a depiction of someone who was also a mother and wife.

Lastly the Board considered the pole dancing scene and the woman’s near nudity. The Board noted that the woman’s breasts were covered (albeit by her hands), and that her nipples and genitals were not shown in the advertisement. The Board considered that the depiction of the woman pole dancing was fairly ‘clinical’ with no overtly sexual music and no touching by the man. The Board noted that even when the woman pokes her bottom out, the viewer sees this from the side and there is no actual nudity or inappropriately sexual views. The Board noted that the advertisement is rated M and is therefore not directed to small children or children under the age of 15 without parental supervision.

On this basis the majority of the Board considered that this part of the advertisement did not breach any of the provisions of the Code. The minority of the Board considered that this part of the advertisement was a breach of community standards in relation to sexuality. All members of the Board noted that the advertiser certainly meant to create an advertisement with some shock value and that this had been achieved. The Board agreed that the diversity of opinion within the Board about the advertisement was likely to reflect community views on the advertisement. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on any grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.”

Point of interest: “The Board noted complaints that the advertisement vilified men by depicting the man at a pole dancing show, paying for the woman to dance.”

I’m interested that MRA’s complained about this advertisement depicting men badly as being cheif buyers of stippers/prostitutes. Frankly men are primarily the people who buy strippers and prostitutes. I suppose depicting it might villify men seeing as the sex trade is encouraged by these men, and encouraging the sex trade is pretty inhuman since it encourages sex-trafficking and rape.

Also: The board considered the woman in the advertisement STRONG and EMPOWERED. So I guess the advertisement wasn’t pandering to men after all. Amirite?