Ethical advertising is not always straightforward. Since the application of the AANA’s code of ethics in 1997, unethical advertising has been substantially reduced. However, these standards are not enforceable in the court of law and some organisations, such as Wicked Campers, push the boundaries of what society thinks is ethical. The self-regulatory model isn’t always effective in upholding ethical standards and as a result, combatting immoral marketing requires a comprehensive and exhaustive approach.
Multiple legislative and non-legislative processes enforce the acceptable advertising standards. The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) is Australia’s national organisation that supports the interests of advertisers and consumers. Ad Standards acts as Australia’s voice for complaints about advertising and marketing standards. The AANA promotes all forms of advertising through self-regulation methods and believes that the industry can regulate and discipline itself. The AANA adopted The Code Of Ethics to guarantee that advertisements are truthful, legal and avoid harming society. Enforced by ad standards, the code of ethics prohibits discriminatory advertising on account of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in Sections 2.1, 2.2. and 2.4.
Camper Van business ‘Wicked Campers’ is a recent example of advertisements contravening Australian Ad Standards and the Codes of Ethics. In 2017, the Advertising Standards Board received a complaint regarding sections 2.1 and 2.4 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics. One of Wicked Campers’ vans featured a discriminatory slogan which read, “A wife: an attachment you screw on the bed to get the housework done”. A complaint to Advertising Standards described the campervans to have had “rude and disgusting slogans displayed on all the vans.” The Panel also noted that the audience for this advertisement was broad and included children. As a result of this complaint, the board confirmed that Wicked Campers’ advert infringed Sections 2.1 and 2.4 of the code. Consequently, they upheld the complaint.
This breach is not new for ‘Wicked Campers’ though, as the company has attracted controversy since 2014, being the subject of a 12000 signature petition and having over 80 upheld complaints. The Advertising Standards Board received the latest complaint concerning this business in 2020. Numerous complaints described the advertisement as “highly misogynistic, derogatory”, “pro-objectification and pro-rape”. Wicked Campers’ advertisements contravened AANA Code of Ethics Sections 2.1 (discrimination or vilification), 2.2 (exploitative or degrading) and 2.4 (sex/ sexuality/ nudity).
The penalties for breaching the AANA’s Code of Ethics ranges widely from being requested to change your advertisement to possible legal ramifications. Ad Standards have several methods to ensure compliance with the AANA’s Code of Ethics. If non-compliance occurs, Ad Standards can refer a breached advertisement to a Government agency or industry body to withdraw the display. Failure to respond to the complaint is also publicised and thus is unwelcome publicity for the business. Refusal to modify an advertisement can also lead to communication with media bodies such as the Outdoor Media Association. In this instance, the media body will communicate directly with the advertiser for removal. Added costs for the removal or modification of their advertisement are additional implications for the businesses or practitioner.
Wicked Campers did not respond to Ad Standards and continue to push the boundaries of ethical marketing. In cases such as ‘Wicked Campers’ where self-regulation fails, other options are available to encourage compliance with moral codes.
Firstly, The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA) prohibits discrimination against a person because of their “sex, gender identity, intersex status, (and) sexual orientation…” This law allows the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to have statutory responsibilities under it and the right to grant exemptions from the SDA in certain circumstances.
Secondly, the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Article 2 depicts that everyone is entitled to the freedoms listed in the UDHR “without distinction of any kind such as … sex.”
Thirdly, although Ad Standards manages a self-regulatory system and have no legal grounds to hold a practitioner to account, they have a very high level of compliance. In situations where an advertiser refuses to modify a commercial that has breached the code, Ad Standards can refer it to governed agencies such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to handle the legal implications.
These international and domestic rules of law are not enough to always ensure compliance with ethical marketing. Community activism and State Government responses, in the case of Wicked Campers, has been required.
Consumer activism offers another means to achieve change. Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Susan Halliday has called on Australian consumers to speak out against using advertising to demean women to sell products. Tactics such as boycotts, broader awareness-raising and targeting lobbying aim to halt discriminatory and sexist advertising in Australia.
Many complaints have criticised the Ad Standards for their effectiveness in upholding the Code of Ethics. Australian Consumer Law’s Wendy Francis challenged Ad Standards, asserting that the Tasmanian government had to assist because the Advertising Standards Board had “failed in its task to enforce advertising guidelines”.
Additionally, Queensland submitted to public pressure and implemented legislation to halt the issue. The ‘Transport Operations (Road Use Management) (Offensive Advertising) Amendment Bill’ aims to rid Queensland roads of offensive vehicles. This bill de-registers commercial cars if the owner failed to remove offensive advertisements within 14 days of being advised. Frustrated by the self-regulatory system, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Northern Territory followed suit. Consequently, this case has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the self-regulatory model. It has shown the necessity of legal recourse in cases where this theory proves ineffective.
Non-compliance has a vast impact on marketing and advertising, resulting in companies losing business, with consumers becoming disgusted by their discriminatory advertising scandal. As a result, practitioners need to understand how to advertise according to the correct ethical codes. Ad standards have suggested that “advertisers should ensure that the content of their ad aligns with current community standards and Australian government health guidelines”. Moreover, if an advertiser is anxious that their advertising may be discriminatory, industry experts can analyse ad strategy and check the compliance to ethical standards.
Advertising ethically is not always straightforward. It depends on many factors such as the content, context, placement and the audience of the ad. Breaching the AANA’s code of ethics is costly- to the advertiser who loses business and to the consumer who faces overtly discriminatory advertising. Standards have been established to guide practitioners in the industry. It is pertinent for practitioners to follow the Code of Ethics and consequently circumvent the implications from industry bodies and the public. Ad Standards enforce the AANA’s Code of Ethics through their self-regulatory model, but action to address the complaints is not always followed through. Self-regulatory compliance works in the majority, but at times, demands other authorities and a community voice to combat unethical advertising. Other legislation, agencies and community action are required to encourage compliance against immoral marketing. Wicked Campers' breach of the code of ethics explores this notion. Statutory legislation and community involvement was necessary to combat their sexist advertising. This case study has made it clear how combatting unethical advertising requires a holistic approach.
