Advert for artificial grass banned for objectifying women

An advertisement promoting artificial grass has been banned for objectifying women as ruled by the Advertising Standards Authority. The billboard displayed a woman in flesh-coloured underwear holding a potted plant in front of her crotch with the caption “No trimming needed!” accompanied by a wink emoji. The ad, belonging to Great Grass, was located in Failsworth, Manchester, but faced criticism for its portrayal of women. A complainant raised concerns that the ad sexualised and demeaned women, deeming it offensive and irresponsible.

Traffic Updates
Great Grass defended the ad by stating it had been well-received, with only one complaint among hundreds of thousands of viewers. The company argued that the figure in the ad could be interpreted as a man or a transgender person, not necessarily a woman. However, the Advertising Standards Authority disagreed, noting the image’s portrayal of a woman due to specific physical characteristics. The ASA concluded that the ad objectified women, breached advertising standards, and perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes.

The poster site owner, 75Media, took the ASA’s concerns seriously and agreed to remove the ad if found in violation of rules. Despite Great Grass receiving positive feedback on the advertisement, the ASA determined its potential to cause widespread offence and harm. The use of an emoji alongside the text compounded the objectification and offensive nature of the ad. Consequently, the ASA mandated the ad’s removal and advised Great Grass to ensure future advertisements were socially responsible and respectful.

Traffic Updates
This incident marks the second time Great Grass has faced backlash over its advertising approach. In a previous instance, the company was instructed to remove a 30ft poster for making inappropriate claims about its product. The controversial nature of both ads has brought attention to the need for responsible and sensitive advertising practices, particularly in terms of gender portrayal and stereotypes. The ongoing debate surrounding these ads underscores the importance of ethical considerations in advertising campaigns.

Great Grass expressed frustration at having to remove the ad following a single complaint, questioning the weight given to dissenting voices compared to the majority’s perceived positive reception. The company’s response highlights the challenges faced by advertisers in navigating the fine line between creativity, humour, and social responsibility. While humour and creativity can enhance the impact of advertisements, they must be used judiciously to avoid causing harm or offence.

The case of the banned artificial grass ad serves as a reminder of the dual responsibility that advertisers bear – to promote their products effectively while upholding ethical standards in messaging. The controversy surrounding the ad underscores the evolving standards of what is deemed acceptable in advertising, particularly in relation to gender representation and societal impact. As the advertising landscape continues to evolve, companies must remain vigilant in ensuring their campaigns uphold respect, inclusivity, and sensitivity towards all audiences.

The decision by the Advertising Standards Authority to ban the Great Grass advertisement reflects a broader shift towards more conscientious advertising practices that prioritize respect and social responsibility. By holding advertisers accountable for the impact of their campaigns, regulatory bodies play a crucial role in shaping a more inclusive and respectful advertising environment. This case serves as a cautionary tale for companies to consider the implications of their advertising content carefully, keeping in mind the diverse perspectives and sensitivities of their audience.