- The ARB dismissed complaints that the NetFlorist Valentine’s advert encouraged gender based violence, finding no depiction or condoning of coercion or entitlement.
- The Directorate held that hoping to have sex is not the same as promoting violence, and that the animated metaphor did not exploit or demean any gender.
- The Board ruled that the advert did not breach Clause 1 or Clause 3.5 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice.
The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has dismissed multiple complaints against a Valentine’s Day Instagram campaign by NetFlorist Pty Ltd, ruling that the advert does not encourage gender-based violence and does not amount to offensive or gender stereotyping advertising.
The decision followed objections from consumers who argued that the animated social media advert was inappropriate in the context of South Africa’s high rates of gender based violence.
The advertiser in the matter was NetFlorist Pty Ltd. The complaints were lodged by various consumers. The matter was considered by the Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board.
The disputed advert appeared as an Instagram reel and featured a cartoon man scratching near his groin. The animation then zoomed in to depict animated sperm singing in an acapella style about being “set free” on Valentine’s Day. The lyrics included the lines, “Woke up this morning with some hope in my heart. He clicked on NetFlorist, and I saw his shopping cart. Been here a really long time, but this time I believe. If he clicks to check out on time, we might possibly leave.” The chorus repeated, “Set me free, this Valentine’s I’m getting free.”
The caption read, “A boring Valentine’s? Not on our watch! Find spoils that make the hearts skip.” A voice-over concluded, “Set them free from love jail this Valentine’s Day, with gifts from Netflorist.”
Complainants argued that in a society grappling with gender-based violence, the advert was inappropriate and offensive. They contended that it sexualised Valentine’s Day and implied that sex is expected or owed if men buy flowers for women.
NetFlorist responded that the advert used a fictional and exaggerated animated metaphor, featuring cartoon-style characters in an unrealistic setting. The advertiser stated that it was not clear how the advert could reasonably be interpreted as encouraging or referencing gender based violence, and pointed to positive public engagement on social media.
Application of the Code
The Directorate considered Clause 1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice, which provides that “Advertisements should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread or sectoral offence.” The clause also makes clear that “the fact that a particular product, service or Advertisement may be offensive to some is not in itself sufficient grounds for upholding an objection.”
In its ruling, the Directorate acknowledged the gravity of the broader social context. It stated, “The Directorate acknowledges that the pervasive and destructive nature of gender based violence in society is of public concern and is a matter to be taken seriously.” It further accepted that “any advertising that appeared to encourage or condone gender based violence would likely be in breach of the relevant provisions of the Code.”
However, the Directorate found that the threshold had not been met in this case. It held, “The Directorate is not convinced that this Advertisement depicts, encourages or condones gender based violence.” While noting the “not so subtle suggestion” that the cartoon man hopes to have sex, it drew a clear distinction between sexual anticipation and violent conduct.
The ruling emphasised, “There is a substantial difference between hoping to have sex, and encouraging, condoning or even referencing gender based violence.” It added that “it would be presumptuous to assume that the man seeks to perpetrate violence,” particularly as the advert shows him purchasing a Valentine’s Day gift, which may suggest he is in a caring relationship.
The Directorate further found that nothing in the visuals or lyrics suggested coercive control, lack of consent, or entitlement. Although some viewers might not appreciate the humour, the Board noted that references to “getting lucky” are common in popular media and do not automatically amount to harmful messaging.
Turning to Clause 3.5 of Section II, which prohibits gender stereotyping or negative gender portrayal, the Directorate quoted the Code’s definition of gender stereotyping as advertising that “portrays a person or persons of a certain gender in a manner that exploits, objectifies or demeans.”
It concluded that the advert did not express a discernible view on men or women, nor did it suggest that women are obliged to submit to sexual advances because of gifts or special occasions. The ruling stated, “It is unreasonable to interpret the Advertisement to suggest that women should subject themselves to the sexual advances of men simply because of a special occasion or because they receive flowers.”
Adopting an objective standard, the Directorate held that “a reasonable viewer would be unlikely to think less of any gender as a result of this Advertisement.” It also found that no reasonable person would alter their conduct in relation to consent because of the advert.
Outcome
The Directorate concluded that the NetFlorist Valentine’s advert did not breach Clause 1 of Section II relating to offensive advertising, nor Clause 3.5 concerning gender stereotyping. The complaints were therefore dismissed.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
