Investigating 'Unexpected Situation' Advertisement's Controversies
Analysis and Written : by Fernando Savero Suhendra
Published Date : Wednesday, 29 April 2020
Ultra-Tune Australia drew the attention of the Advertising Standards Board after complaints were attained in response to its advertisement entitled ‘Unexpected Situation’, an advertisement to promote cars’ repair. As ones are adequate to infer from the video, it depicts two young, rather careless ladies, a driver and her fellow, personated by Rubber Girls duo, Laura Lydall and Parnia Porsche, who at first were in tune with music, suddenly underwent trouble with the car as it approached the railway crossing, where a train was advancing, and eventually stopped in the railway crossing, even after numerous attempts were conducted in order for it to move, which induce a railway accident. A male narration was heard with words, “Avoid unexpected situations. Get your car serviced at Ultra Tune.” (Advertising Standards Board 2016) Subsequently, luckily, those girls escaped unharmed as the car was blazed in fire.
The company itself had ranked in the top 10 list of the ASB’s most complained advertisements in 2016, with 739 complaints. (Kirby 2016) The advertisement itself has delivered 208 complaints (2016). One of the controversies is that the commercial comprises of ‘discrimination’ and ‘exploitation’ against women. According to ASB, “Discrimination and exploitation concerns made up the majority of complaints against the 10 most complained about advertisements for the first half of 2017, continuing the trend from 2016.” (‘Ultra Tune on the Nose with TV Viewers’ 2017). One compliant expressed her frustration, as reported by ABC News, that “This advertisement is telling people that women are stupid and would sit in a broken-down car on the train tracks and get hit instead of getting out of the car.” (‘Ultra Tune discontinues ‘sexiest’ advertisement following Advertising Standards Bureau review’ 2016). Another voiced, “[The] two women are portrayed in a stereotyped ‘bimbo’ manner.” (‘Ultra Tune discontinues ‘sexiest’ advertisement following Advertising Standards Bureau review’ 2016) Daily Mail, in one of its headlines, had referred to advertisement as being ‘sleazy’ and ‘suggest’ women as ‘sex dolls’. (Beers 2016) This is degrading to the status of women as brainless, foolish human beings, no matter how attractive they might be. In addition, the advertisement stereotyped women as impotent and negligent, even to hinder railway casualty.
Other dispute raised was that the commercial was aired during daytime, whereas some deemed as inappropriate hours. In a letter addressed to Mr. Craig Tiley, Chief Executive Officer of Tennis Australia, M Tankard Reist (letter, 11 February 2020), Movement Director of Collective Scout, an organisation aimed at imposing and ending “objectification and sexualisation of girls in media, advertising and pop culture”, articulated that series of Ultra-Tune “ran high on rotation during the recently concluded Australian Open broadcast”, when lots of teenagers, including young women, happened to watch and might be affected by this negative models of those two actresses. Another charge noted mentioned, “Completely inappropriate for daytime TV due to explicit content of seeing two women apparently being killed in an accident where a train crashes into them and then walking away from the crash.” (‘Those Ultra Tune Ads Have Been Banned for Degrading Women’ 2016) These are times where children, who are commonly still naïve, might possibly be watching. When exposed to this kind of content, wrong messages may be deduced.
Another concern pertained to the inconsiderate counter to governments’ as well as transports authorities’ effort, through their various campaigns, to minimize railway incident. As one complaint noted that the advertisement “is making light of a very serious and real situation where people have lost their lives.” (Advertising Standards Bureau 2016) This is capable of recalling past remembrances for viewers, which prompts griefs and traumas, especially for those who had encountered railway accidents themselves or even lost their loved ones through the calamity.
Regarding social ethics relating to the advertisement, Ultra-Tune’s display of women, although no obscene sexuality or nudity is disclosed, had been outrageous, which had been angered women, especially ‘moms. Beyond Buckley’s assumption, which diminish women’s crucial part in the automotive sector, ‘moms’ are increasingly active consumers and decision-makers. In fact, according to Juliet Potter, Founder of AutoChic.com.au, “women purchase 70% of all new vehicles in Australia and make the final decisions in 85% of all new car purchases.” (Carter 2017) As stated previously, women, through the publicity are presented as dim-witted individuals. A mom disclosed, “Ultra-Tune have broken this moral code in the way they have depicted women (and men in my opinion).” (Carter 2017) On account of personal ethic, the advertisement certainly was hurtful to those entities being affected, placing ‘light-hearted’ over others’ troubles.
In regards to professional ethic corrupted, the advertisement infringes the ‘AANA Code for Advertising and Marketing Communications to Children’, which highlighted the importance of “children” being able to “understand what is being advertised, that advertisements do not undermine the authority of parents, and that depictions of unsafe or frightening behaviour are prohibited.” (Morianty et al. 2014) The portrayal of the railway casualty, although, according to the advertiser, the crash does not appear (Advertising Standards Bureau 2016), rather than educating, is still frightening for child. As one mom shared her concern, “As a mother, I do not want my children, girls and boys, exposed to the Ultra-Tune advertisements.” (Carter 2017) Socially, it undermines effects that the advertisement has on viewers, peculiarly children, which is capable of generating fear and anxiety, which in turn provoke nightmares, stresses, and other health-related distressed. In terms of personal ethics, advertisers should take into consideration the possibility of that advertisement being seen by their children, which, certainly, is not amiable experience. As for that, I, personally do not prompt the distribution of the advertisement, unless it undergoes adjustments to accommodate those contentions, and especially not to be advertised during daytime, where children usually watch, as this is able to cause negative impacts.
Concerning the judicial process, at first, the advertiser countered those objections with the explanation that the advertisement was devised as an unrealistic, fabricated action movie style with no indication of disastrous conditions, such as suicide attempt or railway accident, as there was no image of a train, although I, personally, disagree as there is implication through the train’s flash. (Advertising Standards Bureau 2016) The advertiser, however, expressed condolences for those grief or traumatized. Correlating the degradation, objectification, as well as vilification aspects of women, the advertiser affirmed that the advertisement was recorded during evening time, where the display of women in those apparel was termed ‘accepted’ and plainly is not an excuse for the occurrence of ‘harassment, rape, or any other violence’ (2016). On the subject of characterizing the women as dumb and defenceless, the advertiser correspond that the portrayal of those women was usual. On the contrary, they were even personalized as ‘confident’ and ‘empowered’ as they escaped the flame without any assistance and uninjured. (2016) The advertisement is also rated as PG (2016), which means that children should watch under adults’ discernment and supervision.
After overseeing all of Section 2 of the AANA Code of Ethics, relevant to ‘consumer complaints’, the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) concludes that the advertiser is only convicted with the contravention of Section 2.1 which utter, “advertisements shall not portray or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, mental illness, or political belief” on the basis that the women were impersonated as imbecilic, inferring from the way they posed with their “blank faces” as the train seemed to approach. (Advertising Standards Boards 2016). Apart from those, complaints were dismissed.
In return, the advertiser retorted on the basis of the Board’s ‘vilification’ identification and the lack of consideration upon the “potentially humorous effect” of the commercial and thus appeal to the Board for farther examination. (Advertising Standards Board 2016) Ultra-Tune CEO, Sean Buckley, dismissed the accusation, regarded the advertisement as being cheerful, indeed. To Mumbrella, a news-advertising and industry-media site owned by Diversified Communications Australia, he responded, that those criticizers were “social keyboard warriors” and middle-aged feminists “who are after equality”. (Kelly 2017) For those faultfinders, Sean addressed, “Don’t take life too seriously. We are not trying to hurt anyone. Just trying to have some fun.”. (2017) The Board, after farther investigation upon request, still perceive the women as being ‘ridiculous’ and subsequently actuated vilification based on gender (Advertising Standards Bureau 2016). As in the use of humour, the Board determines that it cannot be generalized. (2016) Hence, upheld its previous stance. The advertiser, as noted in the case report, eventually “will discontinue the advertisement”. (2016)
In my opinion the advertiser is incorporating the ‘taste and controversy’ technique, as underline in ‘Advertising Standards and Ethics’ by Justin Healey, that “companies have actually marketed themselves on the basis of controversial advertising”. (2015 p. 2) Through controversies attributed prior, the advertiser is pursuing to attract more audiences, in addition to their aspiration to “promote Ultra-Tune servicing” (Advertising Standards Board 2016) through the exemplification of the situation seen at Ultra Tune’s ‘Unexpected Situation’. Nonetheless, it should have further anticipation on the outcome. If the women were dressed in a rather not-appalling, fully covered attire, it will not have compiled that many critics. Aside from that, it is commendable that in the 20th second for the 30-seconds advertisement, rather than for women to be in the car, to the extent than one of them still enjoying the music, even though it has been clearly seen in the next second that a train is launching to their direction, those women should have descended the car and escaped so that it bring positive impression and also educate citizens what to do in that situation as well as to prevent deadly accident, if that case is to be presented real.
Bibliographies:
- Advertising Standards Bureau 2016, Ad Standards Community Panel Case Report 0020/16, Advertising Standards Bureau, retrieved 12 April 2020, <https://adstandards.com.au/sites/default/files/reports/0020-16.pdf>
- Kirby, C 2016, ‘Ultra Tune tops most complained about ads list of 2016’, Whichcar, 13 December, retrieved 12 April 2020, < https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/ultra-tune-tops-most-complained-about-ads-list-of-2016>
- Kelly, V 2017, ‘Women can jump up and down all they want’ says Ultra Tune boss as brand launches new ads’, Mumbrella, 16 January, retrieved 12 April 2020, <https://mumbrella.com.au/ultra-tune-releases-two-new-ads-insists-wont-get-banned-419723>
- ‘Ultra Tune on the Nose with TV Viewers’ 2017, ‘Servicing Chain’s New Ad Campaign Raises Eyebrows’, Carsales, 1 July, retrieved 12 April 2020, <https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/ultra-tune-on-the-nose-with-tv-viewers-107835/>
- ‘A Water Fight and an Exploding Car-Ultra Tune is Back’ 2017, ‘A Water Fight and an Exploding Car-Ultra Tune is Back’, AdNews, 16 January, retrieved 12 April 2020, <http://www.adnews.com.au/campaigns/a-water-fight-and-an-exploding-car-ultra-tune-is-back>
- B&T Magazine 2016, Those Ultra Tune Ads Have Been Banned for Degrading Women, B and T Magazine, 24 February, retrieved 12 April 2020, <https://www.bandt.com.au/those-ultra-tune-ads-have-been-banned-for-degrading-women/>
- ‘Ultra Tune Discontinues ‘Sexiest’ Advertisement Following Advertising Standards Bureau Review’ 2016, ‘Ultra Tune Discontinues ‘Sexiest’ Advertisement Following Advertising Standards Bureau Review’, ABC News, 23 February, retrieved 12 April 2020, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-23/ultratune-discontinues-sexist-advertisement-after-asb-review/7193854>
- Carter, K 2017, Why the Ultra Tune Ads Have to Go!, Small Ville, 2 February, retrieved 12 April 2020, <https://smallville.com.au/why-the-ultra-tune-ads-have-to-go/>
- Beers, Mae L 2016, ‘The Women are Suggestive of Sex Dolls': 'Sleazy' Ultra Tune Rubber Ad is the Second Most Complained about Commercial of All Time’, Daily Mail Australia, retrieved 13 April 2020, <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4027366/Ultra-Tune-s-rubber-second-complained-Australian-advertisement-time.html>
- Moriarty, S, Mitchell, N, Wells, W, Crawford, R, Brennan, L & Spence-Stone, R, 2015, Advertising Principles and Practice, Pearson, Melbourne, Chapter 3, pp. 81–116
- Healey, J 2015 Advertising standards and ethics, Spinney Press, Thirroul, Chapter 1, pp. 1–20
