When the Australian Association of National Advertisers announced this week that it was updating its Code of Ethics to better reflect concerns about the inadequacy of the advertising (self) regulatory system and wording of the code, we welcomed the change as good news and a long overdue win for all who have joined us in speaking out.
And who better to ask to write a guest post for me than Dr Emma Rush, Lecturer in Ethics and Philosophy at Charles Sturt University and lead author of two reports which launched the debate on the sexualisation of children in this country in 2006 (Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of children in Australia and Letting Children Be Children: Stopping the sexualisation of children in Australia, published by the Australia Institute). Emma also wrote the chapter in my book ‘What Are the Risks of Premature Sexualisation for Children?’ in Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls. As Emma reminds us “Every line of resistance matters”. Never think your actions in speaking out are in vain!
A win in the ongoing struggle against exploitative and degrading adsDr Emma Rush
The Australian Association of National Advertisers’ Code of Ethics (the Code) 
has finally been updated to better reflect community standards on exploitative and degrading advertising.
This is a significant win. I am not aware of the full background prompting this change, but I suspect that it is a further (very welcome) step in a process kick-started by the 2006 Australia Institute report Letting Children be Children: Stopping the Sexualisation of Children in Australia.
The report included a short but significant analysis of the previous performance of the Advertising Standards Board (ASB), the body which considers complaints against the Code. The analysis focused on complaints about ‘sex, sexuality and nudity’ that had been considered by the ASB over the previous four-year period (2002-2005), and queried – given the conspicuous lack of evidence available – whether the ASB was really as reflective of community standards as they claimed to be.
One can only assume that this analysis underlined how vulnerable the ASB was to public scrutiny, because over the following years ASB positions became occupied by a noticeably wider range of people and the Advertising Standards Bureau (which functions as secretariat for the ASB) began to regularly conduct their own research into what community standards actually were.
The Advertising Standards Bureau media release of February 1 summarises the update to the Code as follows.
As of 1 March 2018, Section 2.2 of the Code will provide that:
Advertising or Marketing Communications shall not employ sexual appeal:
(a) where images of Minors, or people who appear to be Minors, are used; or
(b) in a manner which is exploitative or degrading of any individual or group of people.
“Advertisers need to ensure new campaign material is in line with the updated Code and does not use sexual appeal in an exploitative or degrading manner. Previously the Board would only find advertisements to breach the Code if images used were both exploitative and degrading, which was quite a high threshold,” Ms Jolly [Chief Executive Officer of the Advertising Standards Bureau] said.
The definition of ‘exploitative’ has also been updated as of 1 March 2018, to:
(a) taking advantage of the sexual appeal of a person, or group of people, by depicting them as commodities; or
(b) focusing on their body parts where this bears no relevance to the product or service being advertised.
This means that, when you as a concerned community member lodge a complaint about a heavily sexualised advertisement with the ASB (easily done through their website), the provisions against which the ASB will be able to judge your complaint are stronger, and therefore, there is more chance that your complaint will be upheld (or if it is not, that public scrutiny will then be able to be applied).
Importantly, over time, these changes may also transform (in a small way) the discourse in the advertising industry itself.
Now, most advertising regulation in Australia remains reactive (community members must write in to complain about advertising images) rather than proactive (advertising is vetted before it is aired). Compliance with ASB decisions by advertisers remains voluntary. While many advertisers do comply, and withdraw or amend their advertising if a complaint is upheld, others are intransigent, refusing to abide by the ruling, for example Honey Birdette which, as highlighted by Collective Shout, has ignored 9 case reports against it to date). And too often by the time a ruling is made the ad campaign which was the subject of the complaint, is already finished).
We cannot expect an advertising environment that is respectful of women and girls to immediately materialise on March 1. But the changes to the Code do nonetheless change the terms of engagement for advertisers in a way that promises to be of some benefit to the general community.
Have you ever complained about an exploitative or degrading advertisement, either directly to the ASB or more generally in the public and social media discourse to which all organisations claiming to reflect community standards must be attentive?
If so, then you have contributed to this minor but still significant win in the historically protracted struggle for respect for the personhood of every human being. And in this ongoing struggle, every line of resistance matters. So: everyone deserves to be congratulated!
How was this tipping point reached? Because of our supporters. Take a bow! 
How one small word still subtly alter Australia’s ad industry for the better
Outdoor Media Association CEO Charmaine Moldrich explains how the AANA’s subtle shift from ‘exploitative and degrading’ to ‘exploitative or degrading’ is a small ripple with the potential for big waves.
The world changed profoundly last year. What started with the exposure of unacceptable behaviour perpetrated by one man in Hollywood led to the global #metoo movement, which amplified discussions about gender equality across the spectrum.
Having participated in this debate for most of my life, each new development – such as last fortnight’s announcement that F1 will say farewell to its Grid Girls – feels to me like we are past the tipping point, and the momentum is building for wide, sweeping changes.
Over the last decade, prompted by something of a wake-up call in the form of a Federal Parliamentary inquiry, we in the out of home (OOH) advertising industry have cleaned up our act.
Gone are the days of the lurid yellow ‘Longer Lasting Sex’ ads, and in their place, we run training programs, offer a pre-vetting service to members, and provide concept advice to creative agencies. All this to ensure the ads we post are appropriate and in line with the self-regulatory advertising codes.
OMA members have become experts in understanding these codes and considering the particular impact of an OOH ad, given our signs’ high visibility, ability to broadcast 24/7 and prominence in public places…
…Tipping points don’t happen overnight, they are caused by an explosion that has been bubbling under the surface for a long time. Rest assured, the earth won’t shift on its axis on March 1 because we will hold advertisers and creatives to this higher standard, but it will make a difference where it really counts – to our customers. Read full article here.
See also:
The market is eating our children, Emma Rush, MTR
25 Reasons Why Ad Industry Self-Regulation is a Disaster
Collective Shout’s submissions on the failures of our advertising system can be found here
