Ad Standards Australia has responded to four new cases against Honey Birdette regarding the lingerie brand’s store window advertising.
The four cases were brought towards the advertising watchdog via the same complainant who labelled some of the store window advertising as [sic] “straight up p*rn”.
Honey Birdette had not responded to initial reach outs by Ad Standards, with three of the cases upheld.
For one advertisement in particular, which featured a woman in a black lace body suit posed with her leg up on a chair, an Ad Standards community panel considered that the woman appears to be very thin, and noted that her arms and legs look thin, elongated and out of proportion.
“The panel considered that the image appears to have been altered to accentuate the woman’s thinness, and that her body shape appeared to have been distorted in a way that was unrealistic and unattainable through healthy practices,” the case report read.
“The panel noted that another image of the same model in the same lingerie could be found on the advertiser’s website, and considered that in comparison to that image the advertisement appeared to have been altered to make the woman’s thigh very thin.
“The panel considered that the images had not been altered in a way that would be justified in the context of advertising lingerie.
“The panel considered that most members of the community would consider that such a depiction is irresponsible and promotes an unrealistic body image that would be unattainable through healthy practices.”
This advertisement was found to have breached section 2.6 of the AANA Code of Ethics - covering health and safety.
Regarding the other two advertisements, they were found to have breached section 2.4 of the code, covering sex, sexuality and nudity.
The case against the fourth advertisement - which featured a woman in black lace lingerie, sitting on a chair with her head tilted back - was dismissed.
“The panel considered that the sexualised nature of the advertisement came principally from the products being advertised and that the woman’s pose though showing sexual appeal was not overtly sexual.
“The panel considered that the woman’s breasts and genitals were covered and the advertisement did not contain a high level of nudity, nor a pose suggestive of sexual activity.
“The panel considered that it is reasonable for an advertiser to feature their products in an advertisement, so long as the depiction of those products is not overtly sexual.”