Adshel accused of bowing to homophobia after removing safe gay sex poster

We need more information here.

Adshel claims to have removed the posters due to complaints being made to their office, Brisbane City Council and the Advertising Standards Bureau.

Each of these parties has a say in whether or not this poster should remain or be removed.

Firstly, Adshel has a right to remove advertising from their properties that they feel is inappropriate. However, I ask Adshel, do they actually think this poster is inappropriate? If the image shown was a fully-clothed heterosexual couple in a tame but caring embrace, would Adshel believe it to still be inappropriate? If it is a concern over the messaging being disliked by a small sector of the public, then they should consider that VERY FEW messages for any product or community service announcement are relevant, wanted or well-received by 100% of the community.

The Brisbane City Council has a right to remove the ad, especially since they are ultimately responsible for the Brisbane streetscape, the community, and even the rights of individuals. However, I ask them if this poster is not doing a service to a segment of their community? Moreso, is the removal of it doing a disservice to their community?

And of course, the Advertising Standards Bureau has a right to be involved. However, my understanding is that when they receive complaints about a pieceof advertising, they first assess the nature of the complaints and assess the advertising. Upon making a decision that there is a genuine risk to the general community either through dangerous messaging, language, inappropriate imagery, or illegal claims, then the advertiser is issued with a notice. The advertiser has a right to respond to that notice with their own reasons as to why the ad should remain.

Did this happen?

This client has a right to advertise a message that serves to protect the community from danger within this target audience.

Adshel may be unwilling to pay them credit, but it seems the Australian Christian Lobby are taking credit for the removal of the ad campaign on their website:

http://australianchristianlobb.....nding-ads/

From having a look through the complaints it was fairly obvious that a lot of them were made by the same person.

There is nothing wrong with the ad.. it’s way less sexualised than any designer fashion brand.

And I doubt young kids would take any notice or know what it’s about anyway

Could this be an example of an ingenious strategy to generate lively debate rather than simply caving in?

Ahh the ACL…true champions of the vocal minority.

Are advertisers going to be less likely to advertise with AdShel now? I didn’t realise a third party could just pull down my ad if it got some complaints. I thought I would be notified and then it would go through through the ASB.

The QAHC website has all the information about the complaints, the way AdShel informed them of the decision etc, on its homepage. http://www.qahc.org.au/

And the group now has nearly 15,000 members

If it’s this easy to have a campaign pulled from Adshel it really does offer an evil option of taking down competitor campaigns using only a handful of complaints, all worded similarly but sent from different people.

Adshel are very naive not to realise this is an orchestrated campaign. I’ve seen letters of complaint to advertisers that were all from ‘individuals’ but somehow all managed to use the same language (sometimes the exact same letter in fact), came from the same postcode, same specific complaint etc. These are exactly what group letter writing campaigns do. And they’re well aware that as almost no one bothers to write letters or make complaints, that when they do, they get a disproportionate response.

Wake up Adshel. You’re being manipulated.

Adshel should be ashamed of their behaviour. I would love to see the homosexual community and supporters to take their business elsewhere.

If it is children they are concerned about then perhaps the ACL should be focused on worse things such as Kesha and other celebrities singing openly about sex, which is considered “mainstream music”. It’s a complete double standard and these homophobic views are completely outdated. It is a shame that organisations like this create unfair stereotypes for other Christians who are more accepting and have modern views on what it is to be in love. It saddens me greatly that homophobics even have a voice in this country, let alone the power to derail an entire outdoor campaign.

An excerpt from the ACL article:

“The ad featured two men in an act of foreplay with a large condom pictured in the left hand corner and the slogan ‘RIP&ROLL’ as well as the wording ‘A safe sex message from healthy communities’.

Ms Francis said it went against prevailing community standards to introduce sexuality to young children through forced exposure in public.”

*If that’s considered ‘foreplay’, clearly I’m doing it wrong and putting much unnecessary effort into the act.

It’s just astonishing that Adshel claim that because every complaint doesn’t say “we’re from the ACL” anywhere that they didn’t realise it was a concerted campaign.

Well I bet the Christian Lobby didn’t consider that by complaining to have these removed, the ‘offensive’ image and the message of the campaign will reach infinitely more people now than it ever would have via Adshel.

Justice.

Well it’s trending on Twitter as well, what a huge response. One of the top tweets says thank you to the ACL for making it into a national news story featuring a picture of two men in love. Good point!

Gutless, AdShel. I wonder what your homosexual employees and family members think of being branded unsuitable for public display. You’ve missed an opportunity to stand up for the tolerant views of most Australians (which are on display in the dismayed reaction to this story) and instead shown us all that you’re nervous pushovers.

So does this mean if there was a ‘number’ of complaints showing an interracial couple they would follow the same steps? Poor show Adshel.

I will think twice about using AdShel in future campaigns. Disgraceful conduct.

I noticed these billboards as soon as they went up and was struck by how nice they were. What a lovely change from the grotesque bright yellow sex billboards. AdShel should be ashamed of themselves.

It’s now made Triple J News Bulletin. Poor judgement Adshel. I don’t believe Adshel are actually homophobic, but I think they have made a big error in bowing to this minority so quickly and without a ruling from the Standards Board.

I am more offended by the Jersey Shore outdoor ad with the semi clad, fake tanned, oiled up trash bag then these 2 guys hugging.

Someone send AdShel a copy of the Anti-Discrimination Act to read whilst they wait for the protesters to leave the front of their office.

(See video @ http://www.samesame.com.au/new.....office.htm)

And thanks ACL & Friends – you have just unveiled yourselves for the bigots you are. I’m sure Jesus is thrilled to have you using his name.

This story has certainly gained stacks of comments on Mumbrella.

I am not surprised. I think the CSIRO proved years ago that the Australian Christian Lobby is intolerant and full of hate.

They should try and become a little more Christian.

Anything that protects innocent young minds from being polluted is a good thing.

AdShel has demonstrated itself to be a company of high moral standards.

Well done.

MattP – you’re off the planet. Innocent young minds are not going to be polluted by pictures of two men in love, hugging. Kids are going to figure out how to have s*x anyway, especially since many, many other ads and media are portraying ever more graphic depictions of the act and the idea. Do you think it’s better that kids start having s*x (possibly with members of the same s*x, gasp) without understanding that a condom is a very good idea, is acceptable to society and will give them necessary protection against disease? This is an important and necessary community health message, and thanks to the efforts of QAHC it has been been delivered in a classy, respectful way.

Innocent young minds are far more likely to be polluted by hateful, small minded adults, who are trying to repress and decry what they fear and do not understand.

And the trolling by the ACL has begun….

MattP is clearly joking. Either that or he is a bigot.

have these people seen a CK billboard?

amusing pictorial response from the protesters facebook event – http://www.facebook.com/media/.....2344395752

Gossip Girl ads have looked more like foreplay than this ad.

Sorry, why is everyone having a pop at AdShel?

Surely the root cause of this issue is the ACL?

Or is remonstrating / demonstrating against ‘the religious’ deemed inappropriate?

Adshel is reinstating the ads.

The campaign has been reinstated.

Appalling behavior , grow some balls for gods sake…I do wonder if they have left themselves open to suit given that it was their decision to pull the ads and thus reiterating the complaints they received……and if the complaints are found to unfounded……

I know where i will be spending my client money now (with the support of them)

Hello JC Decaux

Adshel are re-instating the campaign.

http://www.adshel.com.au/who/n.....t_id=29383

I think they should probably give them a free 2 week extension of the campaign, too.

I’ve go a pretty sensitive moral compass, even I think you’re average CK undie shot is more explicitly sexual…Adshel wimped out on this one, shame JCD don’t do much in Brissie

There’s obviously no issue at all with featuring a gay couple. But moving away from the matter of sexual preference for one moment…

Is the ‘rip and roll’ copy a bit full on for a bus stand? Maybe it’s not, but… if I had to explain to my 6 year old daughter what rip and roll means I probably wouldn’t appreciate it. Just saying…

AMI were censored in that area, but obviously from a more overt message about having sex.

That said, there is obviously a need to get the safe sex message out there. The controversy has helped that along for sure…

I just removed the Adshel activity from a client proposal.
Very satisfying indeed.

I am pleased to hear Adshel got its backbone back. This was a ‘beautiful’ advert… imagery, positioning of guys, no unnecessary nudity, etc to give a sensitive (emotive) message. Great ad!
Given there is a pride event is this month, it is timely and socially responsible to display these ads. There are far more ‘explicit’ adverts out there it is a wonder this even got to the news!.
Thank you ACL for showing how low on the evolutionary line you are 🙂

ACL = Deft use of Jesus as a moral shield for bigotry and hypocrisy.

This won’t be the last one hears of them…

Quick thinking billboard company, Goa, has retaliated with a firm stance on keeping the ads running on their network. Love a company with solid, logical values.

Check out their media release, and make sure you ‘Like’ Goa to show your support:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/.....6572391315

I am so glad to hear you have reinstated the rip and roll campaign this is a very important message that needs to be sent to our beautiful young men I think it would have been extremely irresponsible of you to remove this campaign.ACL PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

Why is mumbrella censoring my comments.

As of midnight 72,000 had joined the facebook page not bad for less than 48 hours.. and ACL GAME ON !

I am not a bigot or ACL. But I am a parent with children.

I read the complaints and agree with many of them, that as a society it is important to protect young children. I agree there are many advertisements other than this one which are no less inappropriate for young eyes.

This isn’t about a vocal minority who are in outrage. It is about young children who cannot defend themselves and depend upon adults to do so. Clearly many are incapable.

I agree 100% with the message of the campaign, do 5-10 yo’s need to see it? Not really? There’s a time when this kind of communication is appropriate to young ones. With having ads like this on TV, internet, VideoHits (some of the film clips yeeeeow!) etc etc parents have the opportunity to censor it from their bubs. On outdoor though it’s not so easy.
As a general rule, this message is approriate for MOST ages to be exposed to. And GOOD for them to be exposed to, this is something for the general population to be educated on. But it’s a parents right to decide/educate/explain these things to their bubbas at a time they feel is right and they are able to process and understand it. However, makes it hard when it’s just out their in the faces of the kids. This goes for ALL campaigns of an explicit nature. I think this campaign is lovely and completely inoffensive. Just wanted to make the small point on youngins. There’s plenty of time for them to find out about these things. There’s plenty of other ways to get these message across to others in the meantime.

In the ACL putting up a fuss however it’s reached a far greater number of people than the client could ever have hoped for. Far more than people driving past a shleter on the daily commute.
PS be interesting to see the legal ramifications here. I used to work for Adshel, I don’t think they’ve followed their own procedure here! I’m disappointed in the actions taken here to say the least.

Ponder – 11:47 am
I do also ponder at the appropriateness of this ad for young people. Is it gratuitous? No. Is there explicitness? No. Is it offensive? Not particularly. Would there be a fuss if it was exactly the same ad with a young man and woman? Unlikely. Is it appropriate for young people? Yes.
QED.