Ad ruled offside because of expression on naked models’ faces
An outdoor poster for skin brand Ella Bache has failed to win approval because of the expression on the naked models’ faces.
The approved Ella Bache ad
The unapproved Ella Bache ad
However, a version featuring the models smiling has received the nod instead.
Ella Bache today described the move as “one of the most curious decisions in recent advertising history”.
What an indescribably idiotic decision!
Matched in its stupidity only by the explanation.
Australia is amazingly conservative. This is just bullshit.
Outdoor advertising : good decision to ban
Any other medium: Should be ok
OMA may have inadvertently done Ella Bache a favour because the ‘smiling’ pic is much more appealing and engaging in my opinion. The ‘staring’ pic is ho hum. But I’m only a woman and in the target audience so no doubt I’m wrong.
Do I agree this was worth a ‘ruling’? No, thats silly.
“We felt that the image where they looked happy and in control they are empowered, but we felt that the image where they are staring down the camera they are more sexualised.”
Wow, so in order to prevent anyone being offended the OMA release a statement that is far more offensive to all women than the ad could ever be.
What a joke. Is there a way the public can appeal this conservative decision?
In control??? The ad on the right they look like a bunch of giggling bimbos about to fall over the place. Sorry OMA but your reasoning is flawed.
Am I the only woman who smiles in the bedroom?
I agree with Ricki and disagree with Viewer.
agree, this is absolute bull.
smiling and provocative expressions do not always equate to empowerment. somewhat like faking an orgasm. what a load of nonsense.
where is the subtlety?
oh sorry, we illegitimised it in favour of falseness.
I tend to agree with the OMA on this one. Every time I saw outdoor photos on billboards of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd staring down the barrel of the lens, I felt it was sexualized. I knew I was getting f****d big time. 😉
Why do women need to be naked to sell skincare? I get the body beautiful angle and the non-conservative angle but still ask why naked women need to be on our billboards, smiling and ’empowered’ with their clothes off or frowning and sexualised – either way there are other ways to depict women and skin beauty products that could be as effective as nudity.
This decision sounds more “You’re not allowed to look intelligent when naked. Depth is not allowed. Put on a flirty smile instead.”.
In my opinion, this decision is far more offensive than anything in the ad.
I think the left ad is far more powerful – the right ad has smiles with no feeling. Impersonal. Detached. Hollow. False. Awkward.
I agree with OMA’s ruling actually.
When do women ever get together and sit around naked in close little groups like this, awkwardly hiding their nipples from each other? Who cares if they’re smiling or not, how realistic is it in the first place? And why do women keep falling for this crap? I hope my daughter gets better examples of being a woman than this and the other junk the industry spews out.
I’d say it’s because in the non-smiley one the expressions resemble the expressions on the faces of the three from TRUE BLOOD who featured prominently on syd buses a few mths back
As part of the target market – Neither ad would tempt me to use the product.
I am tempted to agree with the OWA though.
I love slice of life advertising.
This decision seems to pervert the course if reason. Were people actually paid to sit in a room and spend time on this! Seriously! This isn’t self regulation but justification of existence. Time to send these old librarians home to read 50 shades of grey…
Do you know, I suspect that most men looking for a shot of sexual stimulation, are very unlikely to be searching out Ella Baché ads.
Today there are simply too many options when it comes to erotica and what the general public loves to label as “Porno.”
How images of naked people and /or people making love or otherwise engaged in sexual intercourse, can be considered pornographic has been beyond my ability to comprehend for some years.
How could the Ella Baché women in either picture be, so called, sexualised or non sexualised? We are all born (OK most of us) with sex, mine is male, the people in the Ella Baché ad are female. when we reach maturity, we are sexual beings and that is all there is to say about sexualisation.
Like those who point and say Porno, those who complain about ads such as the Ella Baché in question, are either politically or religiously motivated by a set of rules they have either had imposed upon them, or have settled upon for themselves, or have some kind of developmental block.
The pictures tell me that the women are enjoying their youth , their bodies and the luxury of fine skin care products. either as women who are not showing outward emotion, or as women who are. Of course any pervert could read a catalogue of interpretations into either, and so it seems can the ad police.