The Council for Ethics in Advertising, a Polish self-regulatory body, has recently rejected a complaint filed against an Inteligo Bank’s TV commercial casted by a popular Polish stage artist and actress Maria Peszek pronouncing the word “sex”. The complainer claimed that using such an inappropriate word in a bank commercial, especially during day-time, infringes on basic principles of morality and good practices in advertising. According to the complaint, the commercial might deprave children who are particularly susceptible to such content and for that reason its broadcast should be halted immediately.

For an ordinary addressee set in Polish social and cultural context, it is clear that the artist’s performance in the troublesome commercial is directly inspired by her song entitled “Nie mam czasu na seks” (“I don’t have time for sex”). The commercial conveyed a message, that Inteligo understands busy lifestyle of those young, active and well-off (who presumably do not have time for sex, as well), and therefore offers services which are formalities-free and user-friendly. A phrase from the song by Maria Peszek, not to mention her image, perfectly fitted in that vision. Moreover, the bank’s representative argued that the word “sex” was actually broadly present in all types of TV programmes, including news and public affaires programmes, broadcasted on various parts of the day, and therefore using “the word” was not considered obscene or shocking anymore.

A Council’s Arbitrator generally shared the viewpoint of the bank, indicating that a single use of the word “sex” in a commercial did not threaten children’s sense of morality and mental development and as a rule it should not be considered against the advertising law and good practices. This decision undoubtedly deserves an approval for promoting freedom of expression and simply common sense.

Catherine Zeta-Jones’ look-alike

Dermika sp. z o.o., a significant market player in the Polish cosmetic industry, was recently accused of abusing Hollywood star’s Catherine Zeta -Jones’ image to promote its products in a women-targeted popular magazine. A Polish model depicted on the photo, according to a complaint lodged to the Council of Ethics in Advertising, seemed to look similar to the famous actress. A strong resemblance could be confusing for an inexperienced reader, especially since Catherine Zeta-Jones has already been a face of numerous cosmetic campaigns and positive associations attributed to her image could have been overused to misled consumers. The complainer argued that Dermika’s conduct constituted not only an act of unfair competition towards consumers and competitors, but also an infringement of personal interest (namely: the public image) of Ms. Zeta-Jones.

Having compared the photographs attached to the complaint, the Council admittedly noticed a unique resemblance of external appearance of the two ladies, but also indicated that the considerable age difference of 20 years was clearly noticeable for an average consumer and the identity of the model could not be confused with the famous actress. Moreover, the Council discovered a contradiction in the complainer’s reasoning between the awareness that  the advertisement does not depict Ms. Zeta-Jones and the accusation of personal interests’ infringement. Evidence collected settled that the picture of the model was not graphically enhanced with Photoshop or another tool. Dermika also claimed that it was highly probable that the complaint was not submitted by an offended anonymous consumer, but rather by a jealous competitor.

Eventually, the Council confirmed conformity of Dermika’s advertisement both with unfair competition law and rules of ethics in advertising. At the same time, the decision passed by The Council emphasized that it is not illicit to hire a model who looks like a celebrity, unless it does not ruin his or her reputation, or result in confusion in the views of general public.

Media Markt’s Spots

The Council of Advertisement, a Polish self-regulatory body, has held in recent decisions that two Media-Markt spots (available here and here) have infringed on the Code of Ethics in Advertising. The first one depictures a husband found with his mistress and subsequently appeasing his wife by handing her over a Media-Markt leaflet. The second treats a funeral in similar way, presenting a surviving wife comforted with the said leaflet while accepting consolations. The common message of the spots is crudely simple: Media-Markt offer makes people happy regardless their most unfortunate situation.

The spot pertaining to the betrayal has been found to trivialize this important social problem therefore advancing unwelcome social behaviour. Moreover, it has been declared as sexist and discriminating against women. The second spot has been found liable to infringe on religious beliefs of the audience.

While appreciating business responsibility for their conduct, as well as for the conduct of their less conscious colleagues, we would be a bit worried were the spots ever condemned legally. Council’s decisions constitute a step in the direction ‘Censorship’ under the label ‘Correctness’. Not offending the popular feelings indubitably remains important for the sake of goodwill. Having that said, this should remain immaterial for the law.

Although discrimination of women is a hot issue, it tends to make a mockery of itself when suppressing such advertisements. And the sole presumption that any of the consumers could ever be so limited as to treat it as an evaluation of women seems a bit implausible. As to the funeral, one must not forget the difference between good taste and legally permissible behaviour.