Advertisers must take care not to portray or depict material in a way that discriminates against or vilifies a person or group.
Section 2.1 of the AANA Code of Ethics states:
Advertising or Marketing Communications shall not portray people 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.
Discrimination means unfair or less favourable treatment.
Vilification means content which humiliates or intimidates, or incites hatred, contempt or ridicule.
For more detail and guidance on the portrayal of people in advertising read the AANA Code of Ethics: Practice Note.
Examples of previous decisions
Discrimination or vilification on the basis of age
The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:
- Depicting elderly people being treated less favourably or being shown as foolish in a ridiculing or mocking way.
The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics:
- Stereotypically depicting of older people in ads which is not negative.
- Portraying older people as sexual beings.
- Network Gaming Tasmania – 0117-22
- Network Gaming Tasmania – 0117-22
- Depicting older people taking part in activities that are usually undertaken by younger people.
- GoDaddy,com – 0075/19
- GoDaddy,com – 0075/19
- Depicting aged care facilities and residents.
- Craveable Brands – 0268/19
- Craveable Brands – 0268/19
- Using phrases like ‘old mate’ as a placeholder for a name that is unknown.
- Brooks Hire – 0310/20
- Brooks Hire – 0310/20
Discrimination or vilification on the basis of disability or mental illness
The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:
- Showing a lack of concern or seriousness for a debilitating condition in a manner that treats sufferers less favourably will constitute discrimination.
The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics:
• Advertising depicting someone who is angry, frustrated or acting unusually.
- Suggesting a person is not managing a specific medical condition appropriately.
- Stacks Law Group – 0165-20
- Stacks Law Group – 0165-20
- Depicting or referencing someone struggling with tasks.
- Depicting a person with vision impairment in a way that is humorous but not shown to be demean or mock the person.
- Specsavers Pty Ltd – 0217-22
- Specsavers Pty Ltd – 0217-22
Discrimination or vilification on the basis of gender
The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:
- Suggesting that men who defer to their partner should be ridiculed or thought less of will likely breach the Code.
- Sportsbet – 0100/20
- Sportsbet – 0100/20
- Reducing women to sexual objects for men’s pleasure presents women in a manner which is degrading and shows them in an unfair or less favourable manner when there is no relation to the product or service being advertised.
- Referencing transgender individuals using terms that are derogatory and vilifying are not acceptable and will breach the Code.
- Wicked Campers – 0087-22
- Wicked Campers – 0087-22
- Unintelligible, domineering or humiliating depictions of, or references to, women will breach the Code.
- Referencing a negative gender stereotype, such as women talking too much or being less capable then men, does amount to material which discriminates against and/or vilifies people on the basis of gender.
The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics:
- Depicting young boys and girls playing with toys or with personality traits traditionally stereotyped to their gender is not of itself a breach.
- Depicting men and women in roles reflective of gender stereotypes when the stereotypes are not negative and there is no suggestion that the roles are limited to a particular gender.
- Appearing to be targeted towards one gender.
- Using common colloquial phrasing, such as ‘are you man enough’.
- Schnithouse Hilton – 0035-21
- Schnithouse Hilton – 0035-21
- Referencing baldness is not inherently discriminatory towards men.
- Mosh – 0249-21
- Mosh – 0249-21
- Depicting a woman as more in control of a situation than a man is not itself discriminatory towards men.
- Referring to violence against women and depicting a man as the perpetrator, or community service ads showing a man as the perpetrator, is not itself discriminatory towards men.
- Advertising treatments for erectile dysfunction is not itself discriminatory towards men.
- Depicting men as incompetent or inexperienced in one situation does not suggest that this same situation applies to all men, or that it is specific to men.
- Depicting a woman as embarrassed or foolish in one situation does not suggest that this same situation applies to all women, or that it is specific to women.
- Using female stereotypes in a way that is not negative is not itself discriminatory towards women.
- Dramatising certain situations facing women in a light-hearted manner.
- Featuring topics like menstruation or incontinence are not inherently discriminatory towards women.
- Suggesting that a person may not want to have children is not discriminatory towards parents or children.
- Doctors on Demand – 0182-21
- Doctors on Demand – 0182-21
Discrimination or vilification on the basis of ethnicity, race or nationality
The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:
- Depicting someone of a particular racial type being feared by other people leaves a negative impression of people of that ethnicity, and amounts to vilification.
- Depicting immigrants/refugees in a negative way is discriminatory.
- Trelly’s Tackle World Shepparton – 0054/17
- Trelly’s Tackle World Shepparton – 0054/17
- Mocking or being likely to give a negative impression of a particular race, ethnicity or nationality is seen to be discriminatory and vilifying.
- Using humorous or mocking references to how another culture is different, such as their names sounding different, is likely to be seen as inciting ridicule of that culture and be found to breach the Code.
- Sportsbet – 0090-21
- Sportsbet – 0090-21
The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics:
- Using only one race or ethnicity in an ad is not itself discriminatory towards other races.
- Using stereotypes of different nationalities where the stereotypes are not negative or derogatory.
- Using people in situations where there is no reference to or focus on the person’s ethnicity and where it is not suggested that they are representative of all people of that ethnicity are not inherently discriminatory.
- Using an international accent in a way which does not mock the country it is from is not discriminatory.
- Using a fictional culture that bears similarities to a real culture or ethnicity is not discriminatory.
- Carlton and United breweries – 0005-22
- Carlton and United breweries – 0005-22
Discrimination or vilification on the basis of religion
The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:
- Depicting an important religious belief in a demeaning way is seen by the Community Panel to be vilification of religion.
The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification) of the Code of Ethics:
- Using imagery related to religious holidays such as Christmas or Easter, along with relevant visuals e.g. visuals of a decorated tree and a man dressed as Santa Claus or rabbits and chocolate eggs, are not inherently discriminatory towards Christianity.
- Using phrases like ‘Thank God’ and ‘Jesus’ as expressions of relief is not itself discriminatory on the basis of religion.
- Using religiously affiliated music and themes in ads for non-religious based products is not itself discriminatory on the basis of religion.
- Saintly Beverages – 0337/20
- Saintly Beverages – 0337/20
- Referencing ‘God’ or religious figures which don’t identify a specific religion is not itself discriminatory.
- Entain Group Pty Ltd – 0242-21