An outdoor advertising campaign by Melbourne fashion brand Motto Fashions has been caught up in an Ad Standards review due to its arguably racy content.
The brand spotlighted its Miracle Pant products on the back of buses across Australia, each featuring a woman wearing fitted black pants, standing backwards. The woman has both her hands placed on her thighs below her buttocks. The words "Motto Miracle Pant. Better from Behind" appear next to her.
A complainant raised concerns with Ad Standards, calling it an “extremely inappropriate and sexualised message", arguing that the ad normalises the sexualisation of girls.
“People don't need to see that without their consent,” the complainant wrote. “Children don't need to see that.”
A spokesperson for Motto responded to the complaint, arguing its Miracle Pant is designed to enhance a person’s “booty” which is what the advert is promoting.
“We thought the insinuation being ‘behind of the bus’ made it a double whammy,” they added.
“I hear you, though, and absolutely did not mean to offend. We are a very women-led and empowered company. I encourage my team to think big and outside of the box.
“We are a company that's focused on disrupting our space (always for the greater good). I do empower my team to take risks, and I think being open about our sexuality is something we should encourage, not be offended by.”
An Ad Standards Community Panel reviewed the case, considering whether the advertisement breached sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the AANA Code of Ethics.
Section 2.2 states that advertising shall not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative or degrading of any individual or group of people.
The panel noted that the advertisement features a close-up of a woman’s buttocks in tight pants, accompanied by the text “better from behind”. They considered that the text, the framing of the image and the placement of the woman’s hands all contribute to the advertisement containing sexual appeal.
However, they noted that the depiction was not exploitative and, with the product designed to enhance a person’s rear, the focus of the advert did not lower the woman in character or quality.
As for section 2.2, relating to sex, sexuality and nudity, the panel found the advert did not contain sex or nudity, and only contained a “mild level” of sexuality.
“The panel considered that this advertisement was on the back of a bus and the relevant audience would be broad and would include children,” the case report read. “The panel considered that the level of sexuality in the product was mild and relevant to the product being promoted.
“The panel considered that the sexuality in the advertisement was treated with sensitivity to the relevant broad audience.”
Following the review, the complaint was dismissed.