Home > Code of Ethics > New Decisions: Nudity, Betting and More

New Decisions: Nudity, Betting and More

Body Shop Nudity Fine For Bathing

A poster for The Body Shop product “Dead Sea Salt Scrub” was displayed in the window of twenty-eight branches of The Body Shop throughout New Zealand. The poster showed a naked young woman standing in the sea. Around the photo of the woman there are frangipani flowers, candles and a container of the sea salt scrub. The words across the top of the poster say “Escape to Spa Bliss, let your senses take flight with dead sea salt scrub”.

A Complainant said the poster was

“…very inappropriate in a mall where mums with young sons shop. It is at my 9 year old son’s level and caught his attention immediately. I have shown the photo to a few mums with kids the same age as mine and they were shocked.”

The Advertiser said its view was that the image used was not offensive. They said the poster promoted the spa range, which relates to bathing, and as such it considered that the naked image was appropriate. The Advertiser also said it did not believe the image employed “sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative and degrading”.

The Complaints Board considered the advertisement with reference to the Code of Ethics and the Code for People in Advertising. The majority of the Board agreed the advertisement had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility and did not contain anything which clearly offended against generally prevailing community standards nor was it likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

The Complaints Board ruled to not uphold the complaint. Read More…

TAB Offer Deemed OK

A New Zealand Racing Board television advertisement promised a refund of up to $20 to first-time TAB bettors if they use the code “August” and lose on a first bet of up to $20. The ad states: “The words “$20 risk free bet for new customers” are repeated onscreen as a number of sporting codes are mentioned.

The Complainant was concerned the advertisement referred to gambling at the TAB as “risk free” when no gambling was risk free and it was clearly an addictive activity for many people. The Complainant was further concerned at the placement of the advertisement in a broadcast of action at the Olympic Games.

The Advertiser stated: “In the context of the advertisement, ‘risk free’ means that if you invest $20 on your first bet, but your bet is unsuccessful, you will receive your bet amount back. The ‘risk free’ element is positioned alongside this single bet, up to the nominal value of $20 and is not attempting to position all gambling as risk free.”

The Complaints Board agreed the offer in the TAB advertisement was for a particular sign-up promotion in which a new bettor would be refunded the money for a losing bet of up to $20. The Complaints Board saw this as making the clearly defined offer literally “risk free”. It also agreed there was no encouragement for people to take risks or over-spend in the advertisement. The Complaints Board ruled that the advertisement did not breach the Code For Advertising Gaming and Gambling.

The Complaints Board also considered the issue of placement. The Advertiser said the positioning of the advertisement during Olympic Games coverage on Prime Television was not devious but rather an attempt to engage with people who liked watching sport and might wish to become TAB customers. The Complaints Board agreed that a gambling addiction is a serious problem but said the placement of the advertisement during a sports event like the Olympics was in context with the promotion of sports betting in general. The Complaints Board ruled the placement of the advertisement did not breach the Code of Ethics.

The Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.  Read More…

The following decisions were released on 4 October 2016: