Pregnancy, gun violence against animated cockatoos, and yet more examples of the ‘girl math’ trend were all subjects in the latest round of Ad Standards rulings, released this week.
This round of offenders of the AANA’s Codes of Ethics included Melbourne-based direct bank ME Bank, IVF and fertility service group City Fertility Centre, and building product and solutions provider, Metroll Darwin.
ME Bank
ME Bank was found in breach of Section 2.1 (discrimination or vilification) of the AANA’s Code of Ethics for an Instagram Reel featuring a man describing the benefits of a ME Bank product.
The caption read: “move over girl math, this is #goodmath”.
According to the case report, this received complaints expressing concern about its discriminatory nature, as well as its implications.
“The words ‘girl math’ appear on screen which are then crossed out and replaced by ‘good math’. Implying that maths done by girls is not ‘good’. This is discriminatory language,” said one complainant.
The Community Panel found that despite an “attempt at social media relevance,” the ad promoted negative and gendered stereotypes.
The last round of Ad Standards’ results saw bubble tea chain Chatime reprimanded for an email ad promoting a half-priced tea with the tagline “according to girl math, that’s basically free.”
The ad was also determined to be in breach of the Code, with the panel similarly finding that “despite the attempt at humour, the ad perpetuates a negative stereotype that women are bad with money.”
City Fertility Centre
The fertility group’s radio ad was flagged for its inclusion of a voiceover repeating the line “you’re still not pregnant,” raising criticisms from complainants concerned the ad could potentially trigger and bully those facing fertility issues.
The Community Panel concluded that the ad did not treat the highly sensitive topic with the expected level of respect for the audiences it serves, finding it in breach of Section 2.6 (health and safety) of the Code of Ethics.
Metroll Darwin
The offending television ad (featured image) shows two men hunting and chatting in the bush, when they spot a cockatoo, and one of the men shoots at it. The ad was promoting roofing services.
The Community Panel recognised that while the ad is a cartoon, many would still find the depiction of shooting a protected species as unjustifiably violent, particularly given the context of the product the ad is trying to promote.
The ad was found to be in breach of Section 2.3 (violence) of the Code of Ethics.
See also: Buttholes, nangs, and ‘girl math’: Ad Standards’ latest rulings