Western Australian bootmaker Steel Blue has survived an Ad Standards community panel review over a Reddit username featured in its latest pay TV advert that subtly referenced a sex toy.
The ad featured a testimonial from a user named “BenWahBalls1”, who shared: “You won't try anything else. Your feet will thank you!”
Complaints were made to Ad Standards, claiming the ad shared inappropriate sexual content.
Steel Blue responded to the allegations, saying its recent campaign ‘Real Comfort. Real Comments’ showcased authentic customer feedback by featuring real online comments, usernames and unpolished language typical of trade workers.
“Part of the appeal of our ads is using the unpolished language that tradies use, which includes using their real internet usernames,” the company shared with Ad Standards. “That said, we were not aware that ‘BenWahBalls’ was also used as the name of a sexual aid. In truth, we believed that the user’s name was Ben Wah and ‘Balls’ was the cheeky suffix added that reflects the easy-going, irreverent nature of Australian trade workers.”
This aside, Steel Blue argued that the advert is not offensive and does not include sexualised content. It added that the name of the sex toy is an “extremely obscure term” that is not commonly known to be associated with sex.
“Of the minority in the general public who may be familiar with the sex toy, I’m surprised any would be offended at its existence. In my view, simply saying the name, which may or may not be related to a sex toy, is not profane and makes no explicit reference to any sexual activity,” the company added.
“It’s also worth noting that Reddit’s terms prevent the use of profanity and have had no issues with the use of the username.”
Despite the arguing, Steel Blue did add that it was willing to take down the advert immediately if the Ad Standards community panel believed the ad breached any section of the AANA Code of Ethics.
While the panel did consider that the ad had contained sexuality, in that the username appeared to reference a sex toy, it ultimately declared the ad did not breach the Code.
“The panel considered that the innuendo in the username is subtle enough, and that the reference is niche enough for people who are familiar with the product to understand the ‘cheeky’ pun. However, the panel considered that people who are not aware of the product would not notice any innuendo.”
According to the panel, people who do not understand the subtle reference or innuendo would merely interpret the ad as a user testimonial about comfort.
“The panel noted that nothing in the ad suggested a double entendre, and that ignorant viewers would have no reason to suspect any sexual reference.
“The panel considered that while people who are familiar with the term may be uncomfortable with its use in advertising, the manner in which it was used demonstrated sufficient sensitivity to the relevant audience.”