A girl is pictured in a classroom wearing a cropped short sleeved shirt, a tartan mini-skirt, and long white socks. She looks somewhat reminiscent of Britney Spears in the pop-stars ‘Baby one more time’ music video, only like Britney, this girl is no student, she’s a model posing in an ad for ‘back to school’ fares from budget airline, Ryanair.
The ad, seen by approximately three and a half million people, appeared in three national newspapers in the UK. But following just 13 complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency (that’s less than .00003% of the readership it was exposed to) the airline has been told to withdraw it due to the fact that the agency believed it “appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behaviour and was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.”
In response to the ruling Ryanair accused the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of being a “bunch of unelected, self-appointed dimwits [who] are clearly incapable of fairly and impartially ruling on advertising.”
Speaking for the Irish airline its head of communications, Peter Sherrard, said: “The ASA becomes more Monty Pythonesque by the day.” Stating that the company plan to defy the ruling he went on you say. “It is remarkable that a picture of a fully clothed model is now claimed to cause ‘serious or widespread offence’, when many of the UK’s leading daily newspapers regularly run pictures of topless or partially dressed females without causing any serious or widespread offence.”
This is a fair point given that The Sun, one of Britain’s most popular daily newspapers with a daily readership of well over three million people, features a daily picture of a topless or nude girl on page three of the newspaper. The Daily Star, which is read by just under two million people, is equally inclined to show such pictures.
Ryanair is no stranger to this kind of controversy though. The airline incurred the wrath of angry Spanish women last year when it released a charity calendar featuring female flight attendants wearing bikinis. The Institute for Women in Spain complained to Irish and EU authorities over the calendar which raised money for a disabled children’s charity called Angels Quest.
Of course, the depiction of women as sex objects is an age old ‘hot button’ issue, though curiously the depiction of men as sex objects seems to raise little, if any, objection at all.
For example, a charity calendar that featured ripped ‘half naked undertakers‘ was applauded by the media that has already gotten used to half naked firemen charity calendars. Indeed, naked charity calendars are old hat now since a bunch of old dears from a the Rylstone and District Women’s Institute in the UK stripped off for a 2000 calendar to raise money for Leukaemia Research.
So what makes one image of a scantily clad person acceptable, and another unacceptable? Why is it that flight attendants in bikinis is offensive to Spanish ladies but buff semi naked morticians are not? Where is the line drawn and why?
In my opinion the Ryanair newspaper ad was not offensive, and certainly no more offensive than Britney’s ‘Baby one more time‘ video or the St Trinians movie which is showing in theatres across the UK at the moment. Maybe I’m missing the point, in which case could someone from that offended .00003% please help me realign my moral compass so that I too can join the moral high club.
—
The offensive ‘hottest’ ad in full
See me after class please Ryan
Ryanair to defy UK advertising watchdog
Ryanair cabin crew girls strip off for charity calendar
Sexist Irish airline slammed by Spaniard ladies
Ryanair ‘is least liked airline’
Men of Mortuaries
Sexy girls sell coffins
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 7:56 am
It’s probably not the “sexiness” of the ad which caused the number of complaints to run into double figures, more the whole “sexy” and “schoolgirl” connection. Some people, 13 people to be precise, can have a tendency to read into those sorts of things.
13 complaints. Ridiculous. Still, nice bit of free advertising for Ryanair.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 1:22 pm
You’re right Bro, those 13 people were complaining about the schoolgirl connection. I wonder then if that same .00003% of people will be complaining about the St Trinians movie and whether the complaint would have any effect or even raise that films raiting to a 12a!
The angry Spanish ladies were complaining about the calendar because it featured women in bikinis. Yet old dear in their birthday suits is okay?
Either way the ad has been a resounding success for the airline and behind the scenes Ryanair must be thanking those 13 party poopers. The cynic in me wonders wether the airline was behind the complaints themselves in the hope that the story would flourish as well as it did. After all, without the press coverage, I would never have seen the ad, and therefore would never have known about the £10 fares.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ad agencies know exactly what they’re doing. Free publicity out the whazoo!
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 2:55 pm
i’m not someone who is offended, but if i were to have an objection it would be from a feminist perspective: that an ad promotes the objectification of women. i don’t look at stuff like that and think it’s morally offensive; i think it’s just one more thing that adds to this issue. i could write about how young females need to see that their worth doesn’t just come from their bodies (and lack thereof); rather their worth can come from factors of a less physical nature (academic achievement, ambition, intelligence, just to name a few).
objections to this ad don’t have to come from the spirit of religiosity and morality, but how about social justice and equality, just for starters. that being said, i don’t care one way or the other, and this .000003 (Whatever) percentage, doesn’t adequately represent the people who have objections: rather the folks who a.) own a television that they regularly watch , b.)have actually seen the ad, AND c.) have enough time on their hands to make some sort of official complaint
So those are just a few reasons why the statistics might be off a tad. :)
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 5:43 pm
i agree that the statistics might be off a bit… you didnt give the info for how long it took for those complaints to come in or how many they generally get.
anyways, i think this was a really poor choice for ryanair. scantily clad adult women is not great for advertising because it objectifies them. STILL they’re adults. To advertise with the naughty school girl theme though brings this advertisement to the teenage girl level.. i have a problem with that. This is an advertisement geared towards adult men and its using someone posing as a teenage girl, a minor, in a scanty uniform. Seriously, that crosses a number of inappropriate, disgusting lines. Men should not be encouraged to have that kind of image of teenage girls. Teenage girls should be seen as minors and not sex objects and we should be encouraging girls to have standards, principles and respect for themselves and their bodies.
Now, i will say that this is a problem in a lot of other areas as well.. but I dont see how that really comes into play here. Ryanair is responsible for what they did, regardless of what low standards are being adhered to around them. I do think the add could have been a lot worse, but regardless i think it was inappropriate.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 6:14 pm
In response to Marcie, I find the whole ‘objectification’ argument very difficult to understand because where do we draw the line. How many fat or ugly people do we see advertising anything? It is a generally accepted fact to use people as props in ads, objects to attract us, inspire us, etc.
Research shows that ‘beautiful people’ tend to fare better in life for one reason or another, so it isn’t surprising that advertisers want to align themselves with ‘beautiful people’ now is it? We could argue that this is unjust and there is merrit in that, but nonetheless it’s human nature for us all to ‘objectify’ beautiful people in some way.
Rachel’s objection has at least got a trace of logic I can follow, though in my opinion it crumbles when put in a broader context of say Britney and St Trinians.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I would love to know how my logic crumbles…:)
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 6:34 pm
St Trinians and Britney have not been banned from air. Indeed the St Trinians movie has been given a 12a rating despite crossing the very lines that I could accept as being objectionable had that standard not seemed so utterly corrupt.
I note that nobody has even attempted to answer the questions in my post. That doesn’t surprise me because people can formulate an opinion on singular instances, but the bigger picture is far harder to address.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 7:26 pm
okay well i’ll bite that bait.
1. So what makes one image of a scantily clad person acceptable, and another unacceptable? 2. Why is it that flight attendants in bikinis is offensive to Spanish ladies but buff semi naked morticians are not? 3. Where is the line drawn and why?
1. I think the first issue to be drawn here is the age difference. Scantily clad minors is not going to be as accepted as a scantily clad adult.
that being said, in britney’s case i think there was a lot of complaint about it… just no one did anything. Its a provative song and isnt really shocking that they would go the provacatively dressed route with it. Ryanair is an airline.. they went out of their way to get the image of a teenage girl in a scanty uniform. PLUS in the britney incident, teenagers are the market audience. Sex appeal using teenagers for teenagers is aweful but more acceptable then teenage sex appeal for adult men. That’s just disgusting.
i dont know about the other example you gave… so i’ll leave this response at that.
2. I think that this is not as offensive because most women couldnt care less. Hot sexy woman is going to do more to a man’s thought process then hot sexy man is to a woman’s. This is granted not always the case and there are exceptions, but generally this is true.
Now i will say that i think there is a problem with men objectifying men more and more and with women objectifying men… but its not nearly at the level of men, women.
Last thought and i’m still working this out, but I wonder if often the bare male calendars arent accepted by women in a “how do you like that” feminist kind of attitude. Women can become very resentful that female bare bodies are being used for advertising purposes and seen as just a means to a company getting money. Plus, women like to be cherished by their man and know they are first in his heart. Seeing the guy they’re with get googley eyed and excited when he sees what should be just an add for a car, could create some resentment cause she wants to be the most attractive thing to him. In return, i think women embrace the male calendars etc. just to slap guys in the face the way they feel slapped- not because they’re getting any excitement from it really but to try and get the guy back at his own game.
That last thought needs some development but it has a lot of truth to it.
3. that’s a broad question… but our lines get pushed farther and farther back every decade that goes by. I will say though that promoting teenage girls as sex objects for adult men is definitely across most people’s lines.
and there goes my lunch break.. lol!
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 8:37 pm
RyanAir aren’t your average brand, they’re not exclusive like some brands, they’re cheap, but they’re cheeky too. They even more rogue than EasyJet. EasyJet tries to please its customers, RyanAir doesn’t care. They offer cheap flights where you want to go. If you want extra, book with someone else.
They’re up for the fast buck, cheap salacious (did I spell that right) ad’s and fast turnaround, (like their service). Will we remember this ad in two weeks time? Doesn’t matter, a million people will book flights.
I work in advertising for brands that would never consider this style of advertising, but it does work for the right brand.
Do I think it’s wrong? It’s not a good example and the marketing manager for RyanAir should have accepted this, I’d love to see the ideas they turned down, but it’s not the worst thing in the world and definitely not worth the press coverage it’s getting.
Peace ;-)
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Nice feedback there Mark. Perhaps I should have said something about the fact that Ryanair pull these stunts fairly regularly and they work well for them most of the time. The airline could be considered the equivalent of a drunken night out in Dublin singing “You’re drunk, you’re drunk, you silly ol’ skunk!” at the top of your voice.
Now Rachel, let me get this straight then. So calendars that feature sexy men, they’re just for women to buy in order to get back at us men? Genius! I’d love to see some stats on whether that cunning tactic is working.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I didnt say they’re just for that… but i think a lot of women approach it that way. I gave an example of how the principle could play out. Plus, i said i wonder, and i’m still working this out if you will recall.
I dont think its something that’s always conscious either- but i have noticed women who seem to go for this sort of thing (woo hoo! look at his butt!) and it just does not seem genuine at all. Its as though they’re trying to work something up… so then i ask myself why. I think it has a lot to do with a, “if you can do it so can we” kind of attitude. I think in some ways it goes right along with the feminist liberation- women can do whatever a man does. You may think this is ridiculous, but there are studies out there that show that male objectification has increased and they blame the feminist movement. I think it might be even a broader anger.. women want an equal chance in society and are a little resentful that they dont have it. Things like the calendar prove they’re on equal footing. Yeah so i dont think its always to get back at men, but i think it is often out of anger, or a desire to prove something.
anyways, i hope that clarified my thoughts a little more. i might be wrong, but its a thought i had so i shared it cause i thought it worth considering. thats all.
I answered your other two questions, i guess you agree? On a somewhat similar note, do you agree that the image of a teenage girl shouldnt be used as a sex object for adult men? if so, how do you differentiate this ad from that?
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 10:40 pm
“They” blame? Who blame?
To answer your last question as I said, I didn’t find that ad offensive. I think any adult (not just men as the ad appeared in a national newspaper not a national mens newspaper) could see that the girl in the ad was not a school student but a model in dress up. This is not any different to the St Trinians series or the current movie. Adult men, much to your surprise, are not disconnected from their brains. Some of us can even do quite complex thinking when required.
I do agree with you on one point though, and that is that I feel women have been treated badly with regards to equal opportunities. I think religion has done a great deal of damage in that regard, so yes, on that point we can very much agree.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 31, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Christina Hoff Summers or Naomi Wolfe… or any others who’ve done studies on this subject that i’m unaware of. and a correction, they’re feminists who link sexual liberation, which came from the feminist movement, to the increased objectification of men.
Wrote the following comment on Feb 2, 2008 at 8:02 am
One thing to add – the woman in the add is not actually a teenager. She’s just wearing a uniform advertising their ‘back to school’ special. Yes, it’s a little edgy, but personally, I think she’s hot! And this whole deal about objectifying women… please! Read a Cosmo and you’ll have more self-esteem issues after that. ^^
Wrote the following comment on Feb 2, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Well said Luli! You know I think isolating any incident and putting under a microscope makes finding fault with it very easy indeed. Because this woman is looking ‘sexy and provocative’ it’s not hard for this image to spark a reaction in other women.
However, this girl is no more or less objectified than the other pretty girls who are photographed in more agreeable ads many of which are aimed at women. In my opinion, those more agreeable ads fly under most womens radar because they are not confronted or perhaps even threatened that pretty girl.
Wrote the following comment on Feb 3, 2008 at 11:32 am
One year for Halloween I dressed up in costume for work (as did many others). I borrowed my teenage daughter’s Catholic school girl uniform (plaid skirt, white shirt, brown shoes) and deliberately made myself to be a nerdy as possible. Hair pulled back clumsily in a barrette, shirt half untucked, and toilet paper dragging from one shoe. I snorted when I laughed, and spoke in nerdy, nasal voice. I can’t tell you how many male co-workers hit on me. Just goes to show – it isn’t the sexy woman, there’s something about the uniform.
And what a shame that I’d have to be dead to meet those morticians!