India TV channels told not to air sexy deodorant ads

[Mabs]

Television channels in India have been ordered not to broadcast "overtly sexual" deodorant adverts that use female models in racy storylines.

The channels have been given five days to modify the offending adverts or take them off air.

"The ads brim with messages aimed at tickling libidinous male instincts," India's information ministry said in a statement.

None of the companies named by the ministry have so far responded.

The ministry said that the adverts offended "good taste and decency" and appeared "indecent, vulgar and suggestive" by subtly sending a message that the products "arouse women's sexuality".

It said that they portrayed women as "lustily hankering after men under the influence of such deodorants".

"The depiction and portrayal of women in these ads is overtly sexual."

The ministry argued that the adverts violate India's advertising code, which states that "cable operators should ensure that the portrayal of the female form... is tasteful and aesthetic and within the well established norms of good taste and decency".

Correspondents say that none of the companies concerned is likely to respond in public to the ministry's move because of the sensitivities surrounding the issue.

'Not objectionable'

There are several advertisements in question, including one in which a woman finds a man's deodorant so stimulating that she begins to undress.

The ministry told the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) to ensure that the adverts were modified or taken off air within five days.

A statement on the ASCI's website says that there have been a large number of complaints about deodorant adverts in the last two years and that it has acted in some cases.

But the statement says that "in many cases, it has been decided that the advertising is not objectionable".

"At ASCI, there are very specific guidelines. Any visual that is not likely to cause grave or widespread offence is not a cause of concern. Most of these deodorant ads are played after 11pm on TV, outside family viewing timing," the statement said.

Brands affected by the ban include Wild Stone, Addiction Deo and Axe.

Last year the ministry suspended Fashion TV (FTV) for 10 days for showing topless models during a show.

Officials said that FTV had violated several provisions of the Cable Television Networks rules by showing women in an "obscene" manner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13562182

 

[desioptimist]

They should be allowed in adult hours(after 11PM)

 

[Mabs]

Now this does not go against anyone's religious beliefs or nationalism to invite a ban. I believe this is a simple case of curtailing freedom of speech in a secular democracy. This isn't a map which distorts the geographical boundaries or a book which degrades a national figure. Just a deodorant add. Sensible analysis by all members is welcome. Try to keep the hate and flames on the low.

 

[Mabs]

They should be allowed in adult hours(after 11PM)

It will open up a Pandora box if you start categorizing material as Adult and non-Adult, and allow selective broadcast on that basis.

 

[desioptimist]

Now this does not go against anyone's religious beliefs or nationalism to invite a ban. I believe this is a simple case of curtailing freedom of speech in a secular democracy. This isn't a map which distorts the geographical boundaries or a book which degrades a national figure. Just a deodorant add. Sensible analysis by all members is welcome. Try to keep the hate and flames on the low.

There are strong women groups who complain it as objectifying women, and distasteful advt. As the news item says there were complain against these ads.
Govt decided to act against those complaints.

 

[desioptimist]

It will open up a Pandora box if you start categorizing material as Adult and non-Adult, and allow selective broadcast on that basis.

Well it has been categorized as such. Even movies get rating based on the content. I am sure you know it already.
Are you against that too?

There was a proposal to rate TV contents, after receiving lots of complains against splitvilla and Roadies. I dont know what happened to that.
You will agree that freedom of expression is sacrosanct, but govt around the world also takes into account public interest like children, public health and has laid down regulations for that.

 

[Peregrine]

They really do make some obscene deo ads.

 

[Mabs]

There are strong women groups who complain it as objectifying women, and distasteful advt. As the news item says there were complain against these ads.
Govt decided to act against those complaints.

When a principle is agreed upon, no complains are entertained over it unless there are extraordinary circumstances. There were no widespread rallies or protest condemning the ads, just a few groups raising their eyebrows. The point is if you start giving into people so easily and start compromising a principle,you are setting a wrong precedent. Where would the buck stop ? Would you have supported this ban if some religious groups had called it objectionable or what would you do if a religious group does the same in the future? As I said, this act opens up a Pandora box and going down this road would make things blurry as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

[Mabs]

Well it has been categorized as such. Even movies get rating based on the content. I am sure you know it already.
Are you against that too?

I am all for rating but I don't think that you can ban or selectively allow some programs to broadcast at a certain time. Rate an ad as PG-18 for all I care, but out rightly banning it isn't really freedom of speech. Also, there is a huge difference between a movie and an ad. Movies are made for public's entertainment as the primary goal and profit as the secondary goal. Ads are made to directly assist the companies in doing business, and banning them hinders their ability to freely earn a justifiable profit.

 

[desioptimist]

When a principle is agreed upon, no complains are entertained over it unless there are extraordinary circumstances. There were no widespread rallies or protest condemning the ads, just a few groups raising their eyebrows. The point is if you start giving into people so easily and start compromising a principle,you are setting a wrong precedent. Where would the buck stop ? Would you have supported this ban if some religious groups had called it objectionable or what would you do if a religious group does the same in the future? As I said, this act opens up a Pandora box and going down this road would make things blurry as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

I think the principle of banning something only on the basis of number of complains is wrong.
If a complain is received, it should be investigated, if the complaint is found to have merit, the advertiser should be intimated to change it or take it off.

Anyway, there is a independent body which deals with advts.
I will be very worried if this happens routinely, but I am sure you know that is not the case.

If you think it is unique to india, please search around, you will find plenty in developed countries where ads are banned due to vulgarity, wrong information, violence or public health reason.

If you are against all these in principle, then I am fine with it. I just wanted to point out, it is not abnormal in developed countries where freedom of expression is guaranteed much more than south east asian countries.

 

[VelocuR]

Bad influences by Bollywood which should be banned immediatley in all places. Why blamed on Advertising?

ban include Wild Stone, Addiction Deo and Axe.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

the ads are an expression of a normal human feelings they should be allowed

 

[Mabs]

, wrong information, violence or public health reason.

I don't have a problem if you ban something for the above reasons, but when you ban something for objectifying women, it becomes very subjective. What would you call most of the movies made in Bollywood? They are an epitome of women objectification but I don't see any Women-rights groups raising their voices over that. Also, as you mentioned, what is the guarantee that this won't happen on a regular basis?

 

[Mabs]

At ASCI, there are very specific guidelines. Any visual that is not likely to cause grave or widespread offence is not a cause of concern

As I said before, if there were no grave or widespread concerns with the ads, why ban them? Why set a precedent which will be awfully difficult to implement rightly in the future?

 

[desioptimist]

I don't have a problem if you ban something for the above reasons, but when you ban something for objectifying women, it becomes very subjective. What would you call most of the movies made in Bollywood? They are an epitome of women objectification but I don't see any Women-rights groups raising their voices over that. Also, as you mentioned, what is the guarantee that this won't happen on a regular basis?

Actually women right groups routinely object to many such movies.(I am not sure most of the bollywood movies are so). But movies go through an independent censor board which suggest cuts, changes etc, which has members who belong to cross section of society.

As you said, and I agree, vulgarity and good taste is subjective(or objectifying women), whatever decision is taken will not be acceptable to everybody.
Unfortunately there is no perfect way to do it, usually a body of people go through it and decide whatever they think is right.
There are good movies subjected to cuts due to bad decision of censor board,where as some bad movies get away with murder.

Also, there is more leeway given to movies as they are "opted in", one pays to go to movies. TV contents are "opted out", you have to change channel if you dont like.


Here is one specific instance in uk.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/07/asa-used-car-website-ad-banned