ASA - "Gender stereotypes have the potential to cause harm"

[UnWilly]

There is a BBC news article about Love Island and Firefighters that includes this from the ASA

"Earlier this year, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ran a consultation on a proposal that adverts "must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence".

An ASA spokeswoman said: "We've published evidence that shows gender stereotypes have the potential to cause harm because they limit how people's potential is considered by themselves and others - with costs to the individual, economy and society.

"We've already been taking action to ban ads which reinforce harmful stereotypes and we'll publish the results of our consultation around new rules for advertisers later this year."

Article here www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45254129

On a quick look so far the ASA research seems quite interesting (although some uses of term gender, sex may be what they actually mean...)

www.asa.org.uk/genderresearch.html

Yes, I can see the ways in which they can be used badly, certainly. I'm just not at all convinced this sort of measure does much to eliminate it in this arena, because what exactly are we talking about in terms of stereotypes.

Ads for Bisto at Christmas that show mothers as the driving force behind a family Christmas? It's a reflection of many women's reality, which is one of the reasons it's a stereotype in the first place.

So, there are no more mums shown as that driving force in 30 second adverts. I'm not really clear what it achieves. Ok, no more women doing the cleaning, and men doing the car repairs.

I don't know, just seems to make the fictional world of adverts even more of an artifice to me. I'm willing to readdress this one, but I'm just not there right now.

It means that they have a code they can apply if / when they get lots of complaints, and that the advertisers can read for guidance.

There won't be no mums shown doing xmas.

What there will be is more opportunity for complaints to be acted on, when ads are more flagrantly sexist.

"The evidence does not show that the use of gender stereotypes is always problematic and the new rule does not seek to ban gender stereotypes outright, but to identify specific harms that should be prevented.

CAP has published guidance to help advertisers stick to the new rule by providing examples of scenarios likely to be problematic in ads. For example:

An ad that depicts a man with his feet up and family members creating mess around a home while a woman is solely responsible for cleaning up the mess.
An ad that depicts a man or a woman failing to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g. a man’s inability to change nappies; a woman’s inability to park a car.
Where an ad features a person with a physique that does not match an ideal stereotypically associated with their gender, the ad should not imply that their physique is a significant reason for them not being successful, for example in their romantic or social lives.
An ad that seeks to emphasise the contrast between a boy’s stereotypical personality (e.g. daring) with a girl’s stereotypical personality (e.g. caring) needs to be handled with care.
An ad aimed at new mums which suggests that looking attractive or keeping a home pristine is a priority over other factors such as their emotional wellbeing.
An ad that belittles a man for carrying out stereotypically ‘female’ roles or tasks.
The rule and guidance does not intend to prevent ads from featuring:

Glamorous, attractive, successful, aspirational or healthy people or lifestyles;
One gender only, including in ads for products developed for and aimed at one gender;
Gender stereotypes as a means to challenge their negative effects."

Key word is "harmful":

www.asa.org.uk/news/harmful-gender-stereotypes-in-ads-to-be-banned.html

Fair enough, the guidelines seem rational and measured. Was it not possible to complain about adverts before for any of those reasons? Given that you've stated there that it will be one of the benefits. I know I've read about loads of advert controversies around some of these issues before - is this more of a streamlining of guidelines to make that more straightforward?

If they have more solid guidelines it makes it easier for them to act when an ad is obviously out of order / attracts complaints.

TV ads are v high profile but they also cover billboard ads etc which only local people might see and so they go on complaints a lot of the time and then they have the power to say no take it down but they have to have a reason ie goes against our standards. This has put the standards around sex stereotypes / objectificaiton into clearer / more detailed language making it easier for advertisers to understand where the lines are + them to act if they step over them.

I think it's good news.

Yes, reading round some more this, I've changed my mind. I'm always resistant to censorship on a general level, but this looks like a sensible adjustment and that word 'harmful' does make enough of a difference to me. Fair play.

I think it seems sensible on the face of it, but I am uncomfortable with corporates (and this is directly linked) meddling. For example, see other post about apple investing in pushing the idea of gender neutral bathrooms.
I think we’re largely being ruled by large corporate interests as it is, and I think we need less not more of it.
Also as one poster said the key word is “harmful” which is a reassuring, but then how you define harmful- some might say that a stereotype is that “only women have periods” is harmful to them. Not there yet but can see how things
might progress.
On the bbc it said some adverts like baby Annabelle doll, might come under fire- which I think is taking it a bit far to be honest.
These companies have never objected to using stereotypes in the past to promote their own products. I’m suspicious of the motivation.
Il see how it goes anyway because the agreement between p&g, unilever, Unstereotype Alliance etc doesn’t just aim at advertising and hopes to bring significant change by 2020.