ADVERTISING ISSUES: REGULATION, ETHICS AND CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
PREPARED BY Long Pham Duc Hannes de Beer Rukchanok Chaimuangmool Xiyuan Fan
SUBMISSION DATE 27th May, 2024
This report responds to six complaints to international advertisements using the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Advertising Codes.
The cases cover a range of complaints, including misleading health claims, cultural insensitivity, sexual objectification, and fear-mongering. Each complaint is examined in detail, with reference to relevant sections of the AANA Code and supporting academic literature.
The analysis reveals that all six advertisements breached the AANA Code of Ethics in various ways and underscores the importance of adhering to ethical standards in advertising, especially when targeting broad audiences or making claims about health and environmental impact
The report concludes with recommendations for advertisers to ensure their campaigns are both ethical and responsible
Case Number: 1. Advertiser: 2 Product:3.
Type of Advertisement/Media: 4.
Date of Determination: 5
Determination:6.
0001-24
Dior
Fragrance TV and Social Media 27-May-2024
Upheld
AANA Code of Ethics\2.1 Discrimination or Vilification
AANA Code of Ethics\2 3 Violence
DESCRIPTION OF ADVERTISEMENT
This TV and social media advertisement by Dior featured Johnny Depp in Native American attire, promoting the "Sauvage" fragrance The ad depicted traditional Native American dance and imagery, with Depp playing a guitar in a desert setting.
Comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
This advertisement is culturally insensitive and appropriates Native American culture in a way that is disrespectful. It uses Native American imagery and traditions to sell a product, which is both exploitative and offensive Additionally, the name "Sauvage" (French for "wild") combined with these depictions perpetuates negative stereotypes about Native Americans being primitive or savage Furthermore, the portrayal of Depp with a guitar amidst traditional dance scenes is jarring and disrespectful to the sacredness of Native American cultural practices.
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this advertisement include the following:
Dior intended to honor Native American culture through this campaign. The imagery and dance were included to highlight the deep respect and admiration for Native American traditions. Dior collaborated with Native American consultants to ensure cultural accuracy and sensitivity The name "Sauvage" was chosen for its evocation of natural, untamed beauty, not to demean any group. Dior has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion and did not intend to cause offense (Dior, 2023).
The Ad Standards Community Panel (the Panel) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the AANA Code of Ethics (the Code)
The Panel noted the complainant’s concern that the advertisement presents a negative stereotype about Native American culture and could be seen as culturally insensitive.
The Panel viewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser’s response
Section 2.1: Advertising or Marketing Communication 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.
The Panel noted the AANA Practice Note which provides guidance on the meaning of:
l Discrimination: Unfair or less favorable treatment.
l Vilification: Humiliates, intimidates, incites hatred, contempt, or ridicule (AANA, 2023)
The Panel noted that the use of Native American cultural elements in the advertisement, particularly in conjunction with the term "Sauvage," could be interpreted as suggesting that Native Americans are primitive or uncivilized This portrayal is particularly sensitive given the historical context of discrimination and stereotyping faced by Native American communities (Smith, 2022).
Section 2.3: Advertising or Marketing Communication shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.
The Panel noted that while the advertisement did not explicitly depict violence, the cultural appropriation and insensitive portrayal of sacred traditions could be seen as a form of symbolic violence This misrepresentation can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and contribute to cultural erasure(Johnson, 2021).
Sections 2.1 and 2.3 Conclusion
Finding that the advertisement did portray material in a way which discriminates against and vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race and ethnicity, and that it presented cultural elements in a violent and disrespectful manner, the Panel determined that the advertisement did breach Sections 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code(Advertising Standards Authority, 2023).
Finding that the advertisement did breach other sections of the Code, the Panel upheld the complaint. Dior was required to remove the advertisement and issue a public apology to address the offense caused
Case Number: 1. Advertiser: 2
Product:3.
Type of Advertisement/Media: 4.
Date of Determination: 5
Determination:6.
0002-24
Calvin Klein Clothing Billboard 27-May-2024 Upheld
AANA Code of Ethics\2.4 Sex, Sexuality and Nudity
AANA Code of Ethics\2 6 Health and Safety
DESCRIPTION OF ADVERTISEMENT
This billboard advertisement by Calvin Klein featured a highly sexualized image of a model wearing Calvin Klein underwear, accompanied by the slogan "Explicit Content " The model was depicted in a provocative pose, and the advertisement was placed in a high-traffic area visible to all age groups
Comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
This advertisement is inappropriate for public display due to its overtly sexual content. It is located in an area frequented by children and families, making it unsuitable for such a demographic. The sexualized imagery and the slogan "Explicit Content" promote an unhealthy and unrealistic portrayal of body image and sexuality. It is also a potential distraction for drivers, posing a safety risk
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this advertisement include the following:
Calvin Klein's advertisement aims to promote body positivity and confidence. The image and slogan are intended to empower individuals by celebrating their bodies and sexuality. Calvin Klein understands the sensitivity of such content and selected this advertisement to align with its brand message of boldness and self-expression. The placement was chosen for maximum visibility to reach a broad audience (Calvin Klein, 2023)
The Ad Standards Community Panel (the Panel) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the AANA Code of Ethics (the Code).
The Panel noted the complainant’s concern that the advertisement presents a negative stereotype about Native American culture and could be seen as culturally insensitive
The Panel viewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser’s response.
Section 2.4: Advertising or Marketing Communication shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and, where appropriate, the relevant program time zone.
The Panel noted the AANA Practice Note which provides guidance on the meaning of:
l Sex, Sexuality and Nudity: These must be treated with sensitivity to the relevant audience and context(AANA, 2023)
The Panel noted that the advertisement's explicit sexual content, combined with its prominent placement, did not treat sex and sexuality with the necessary sensitivity. The billboard's location in a public space frequented by diverse age groups, including children, made the content inappropriate(Thompson & Lee, 2023)
Section 2.6: Advertising or Marketing Communication shall not depict material contrary to Prevailing Community Standards on health and safety.
The Panel noted that the highly sexualized imagery could contribute to unrealistic and unhealthy body image standards Additionally, the provocative nature of the advertisement could distract drivers, posing a safety risk (Wykes & Gunter, 2020).
Finding that the advertisement did not treat sex, sexuality, and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and depicted material contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety, the Panel determined that the advertisement did breach Sections 2.4 and 2.6 of the Code (Advertising Standards Authority, 2023).
Finding that the advertisement did breach other sections of the Code, the Panel upheld the complaint. Calvin Klein was required to remove the advertisement and issue a public apology to address the offense caused
Case Number: 1. Advertiser:2. Product:3.
Type of Advertisement/Media: 4. Date of Determination: 5
Determination:6.
AANA Environmental Claims Code 1 1
AANA Environmental Claims Code2(b)
AANA Food and Beverages Code 2.1
0003-24
Iceland Foods Ltd Food
National press ad 27-May-2024
Upheld
Iceland Foods Ltd., a prominent UK supermarket chain, faced scrutiny from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over a national press advertisement promoting their "luxury value Christmas feast." The ad, which claimed to offer savings and convenience compared to competitors, was deemed misleading due to a lack of transparency in the price comparison methodology and the presence of unclear small print.
The ASA upheld the complaint, finding that the advertisement breached the Code of Advertising Practice The key issues identified were:
Misleading Price Comparison
The claim of being "NUMBER 1 FOR A LUXURY VALUE CHRISTMAS FEAST" was not substantiated with clear information about which products were included in the comparison or how the comparison was conducted This lack of transparency could lead consumers to believe that Iceland's festive offerings were universally cheaper than competitors, a claim that may not hold true for all products or scenarios.
Iceland Foods Ltd.'s failure to respond to the ASA's complaint further compounded the issue. The ASA, in the absence of a satisfactory response, concluded that the advertisement was misleading and ordered its removal This underscores the importance of engaging with regulatory bodies and addressing complaints promptly and transparently
The ASA's decision aligns with the principles outlined in the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics, specifically the Food and Beverages Code and the Environmental Claims Code.
AANA Food and Beverages Code 2.1:
This section prohibits misleading or deceptive advertising for food or beverage products. The Iceland Foods advertisement, with its unsubstantiated price comparison claim, violated this principle.
“Prohibits targeting children with advertising for food or beverage products that are high in saturated fat, sugar or sodium” . (AANA, 2023)
AANA Environmental Claims Code 1.1:
These sections mandate that environmental claims in advertising must be clear, unambiguous, and not overstated. While the Iceland Foods advertisement did not directly make environmental claims, the ASA's emphasis on clear and transparent information is consistent with the principles of this code.
“Environmental Claims in Advertising or Marketing Communication: shall not be misleading or deceptive or be likely to mislead or deceive ” (AANA, 2023)
AANA Environmental Claims Code 2(b):
From an ethical perspective, the Iceland Foods case raises concerns about truthfulness and fairness in advertising By making unsubstantiated claims and obscuring crucial information, the company potentially deceived consumers and gained an unfair advantage over competitors. This behavior contradicts the ethical principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for consumers' autonomy, as outlined in works by Sheehan (2014) and Snyder (2017)
“A genuine benefit to the environment do not overstate the claim expressly or by implication.” (AANA, 2023)
The Iceland Foods case highlights the importance of ethical and transparent advertising practices in the food and beverage industry. To avoid similar breaches, advertisers must substantiate claims with verifiable evidence, use clear and unambiguous language, ensure legible and informative small print, and engage with complaints constructively. By following these recommendations, advertisers can foster trust with consumers, uphold ethical standards, and contribute to a more responsible advertising landscape.
Case Number: 1
Advertiser:2. Product: 3
Type of Advertisement/Media: 4.
Date of Determination: 5
Determination:6.
0004-24
Dotsure Insurance
TV - on demand
27-May-2024
Upheld
AANA Code of Ethics\2.3 Violence
The TV commercial advertisement shows a family talking about how their dog was shot during an armed robbery in their home as it tried to protect one of their two children which features a graphic soundtrack, and distressing details of the pet's injuries.
Comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
The TV ad is unsuitable for children and uses fear to sell products to adults It evokes fears of home invasions and traumatic details, like the sound of shooting of dogs during robberies, using triggering sound effects This tactic unjustifiably exploits South Africans' fears for their family's and pets' safety Such fearmongering extends beyond pet insurance advertisements, highlighting the problematic use of fear to drive sales.
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this advertisement include the following:
Dotsure denied any wrongdoing, asserting the ad celebrates a heroic animal with a positive outcome based on true events. They stated it was not intended to promote animal abuse or instill fear Dotsure argued that the ad's context, medium, and audience would prevent it from negatively affecting the public, and any perceived severity was mitigated by the positive message.
Section 2.3: Advertising shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised
The Panel noted that the Practice Note for this section of the Code states:
“Although the depiction of violence in an advertisement may be relevant to the story being told in the advertisement, any violence must also be justifiable in the context of the product being advertised, or else will be in breach of this section of the Code In considering whether the violence or menace depicted in an advertisement is justifiable, the Community Panel may have regard to the audience of the advertisement Graphic depictions of violence or a strong suggestion of menace have been found to present violence in an unacceptable manner especially when visible to a broad audience which includes children. ”
advertisement
It was considered that the advertisement featured the consequences of violence and audio representations of violence of the robbery and crime in the house being told by a family which contained triggering sound effects such as police siren, shooting gunshot.
Moreover, Violence against animals is caught by this section with the sound effects of such violence and graphic depictions.
The advertisement contained a level of threats and violent scenes, however not shown directly, that may be considered violence by some members of the community.
Is the violence portrayed justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised?
The ad's use of violence was deemed unjustifiable for a pet insurance commercial and could be conveyed less intensely High levels of fear from sound effects, dark scenes, and threats to occupants, including children, were cited. As Arthur & Quester (2003, p.14) states, “using threatening messages are more likely to be perceived as ethical when fear is relevant to the advertised product.” The portrayal of crime scenes and violence against animals to evoke fear is irrelevant to selling pet insurance and was considered unethical and unjustifiable.
the advertisement did present or portray violence which was not justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised and did breach Section 2.3 of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did breach Section 2.3 of the Code, the Panel upheld the complaint. CONCLUSION
“Let’s
Case Number: 1.
Advertiser: 2
Product:3.
Type of Advertisement/Media: 4
Date of Determination: 5
Determination:6.
0005-24
AHDB (UK)
Food/Beverages
Internet - Social - Youtube
27-May-2024
Upheld
AANA Food and Beverages Code\2.1 Not misleading or deceptive
AANA Environmental Claims Code\1 1 Not misleading or deceptive\2 (b) must not overstate the claim
The ads campaign called “Let’s Eat Balanced”, featuring three video commercial advertisements highlighting British beef, lamb, and dairy as natural sources of protein and vitamin B12, which help reduce tiredness and fatigue.
Comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
The campaign deceived consumers by hiding health and environmental risks of their products Ads for Beef and Lamb touted health benefits, implying they're crucial for a balanced diet, which was deemed misleading. The use of "goodness" and serene countryside imagery falsely suggests eco-friendliness, while animal farming notably pollutes and harms biodiversity
the advertiser did not provide a response to the complaint/s
Section 2.1 Advertising for Food or Beverage Products must not be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
The Food Code's Practice Note (AANA, 2023) states that the Community Panel considers the likely audience when assessing if food advertising is misleading.
The target audience for the "Let's Eat Balanced" campaign includes younger Gen Z consumers, according to their website campaign, “Let's Eat Balanced aims to capture consumers to a broad demographic, especially for younger Gen Z audience ”
It found that while the term "goodness" alone might not strongly mislead consumers, the title “Let’s Eat Balanced” and the subtext “A balanced diet and healthy lifestyle are recommended for good health” combined with phrases like “THIS” and “THAT” referring to red meats suggest that beef and lamb are necessary for a healthy diet This could mislead young audiences into thinking these meats are essential for good health and a balanced diet.
Overall, the advertisement is likely to mislead or deceive an average consumer within the target audience.
The environmental code applies to any representation that a product or service interacts with or influences the environment (AANA, 2023). By depicting their products as beneficial to the environment with the term "goodness" and natural landscape imagery, the adverts make environmental claims.
Section 1.1 Environmental Claims in Advertising or Marketing Communication shall not be misleading or deceptive or be likely to mislead or deceive;
the Practice Note for this Section includes:
“ .. All advertising should be clear, unambiguous and balanced, and the use of technical or scientific jargon carefully considered.”
The text “British beef/lamb has all the goodness of that” is ambiguous and unclear to interpret as either the production of products are healthy and good for the environment or the beef/lamb are all naturally produced.
t noted that the adverts' ambiguous text are likely to be misleading the target audience that British beef/lamb are healthy and positive to the environment, in fact animal agriculture is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse glass emission (Ritchie et al 2022)
Section 2 (b) Environmental Claims must not overstate the claim expressly or by implication;
The Practice Note for this Section includes:
“Advertisers and marketers should avoid making claims that expressly or impliedly overstate an environmental benefit. Consideration should be given to whether there is sufficient disclosure of any negative impacts ”
Advertising language can often use vague or misleading terminology to create the impression that companies and products are more engaged with social issues than they actually are (Sheehan 2004, p 251) It's considered that the advert is likely to exaggerate the environmental friendliness of beef and lamb production by using idyllic countryside images and phrases like "all the goodness," which misleadingly suggest minimal environmental impact
Thus, the adverts seem to mislead audiences by overstating the positive environmental implications.
Finding that the advertisement did breach Section 2.1 of the AANA Food and Beverages Code and Sections 1.1 and 2 (b) of the AANA Environmental Claims in Advertising and Marketing Code
“Cancer won’t be the last thing that f*cks me” (2023)
Case Number: 1
Advertiser:2. Product: 3
Type of Advertisement/Media: 4.
Date of Determination: 5. Determination: 6
0006-24
GIRLvsCANCER
Community Awareness
Billboard
27-May-2024
Upheld
AANA Code of Ethics\2.4 Sex/sexuality/nudity
AANA Code of Ethics\2 5 Language
The Billboard advertisement shows the bare torso of a woman, with another person’s hand covering and gripping one of her breasts and her own hand atop it, while her partner’s other hand reaches from behind her down to below her belly button. The framing of the photograph cuts off her other breast and everything below her hips, as well as everything above her shoulders. There is bold white text over the image that reads “CANCER WON’T BE THE LAST THING THAT F*CKS ME” Below the image is the advertiser’s logo and a QR code with text that reads “SMASH THE STIGMA”.
Comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
Nudity and sexually explicit imagery should not be allowed on billboard ads The vulgar language used in the ad is also inappropriate for big billboards This ad could be seen by children and is very confronting.
The Ad Standards Community Panel (the Panel) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the AANA Code of Ethics (the Code).
The Panel noted the complainant’s concern that the advertisement is degrading, infers sexual assault, and is inappropriate to be shown where children can view it.
The Panel viewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser’s response.
Section 2.4: Advertising shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience.
Does the advertisement contain sex?
The Panel considered whether the advertisement contained sex.
The Panel noted the definition of sex in the Practice Note is “sexual intercourse; person or persons engaged in sexually stimulating behaviour”.
The Panel noted that the advertisement featured a woman being touched in intimate places on her body while being nude, and considered this a depiction of sex.
Does the advertisement contain nudity?
The Panel noted that the definition of nudity in the Practice Note is “the depiction of a person without clothing or covering; partial or suggested nudity may also be considered nudity”.
The Panel noted that the advertisement shows a nude woman whose breasts are covered only by hands, and considered this a depiction of nudity.
Does the advertisement contain nudity?
The Panel noted that the definition of nudity in the Practice Note is “the depiction of a person without clothing or covering; partial or suggested nudity may also be considered nudity”
The Panel noted that the advertisement shows a nude woman whose breasts are covered only by hands, and considered this a depiction of nudity.
Are the issues of sex, sexuality and nudity treated with sensitivity to the relevant audience?
The Panel noted that the definition of sensitivity in the Practice Note is “understanding and awareness to the needs and emotions of others”.
The Panel considered that the requirement to consider whether sexual suggestion is ‘sensitive to the relevant audience’ requires them to consider who the relevant audience is and to have an understanding of how they might react to or feel about the advertisement.
The Panel noted that this advertisement was a billboard, and the relevant audience would be broad and include children
The Panel considered the depiction of a nude woman having sex did not treat the issues of sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant broad audience Exposure of sexually explicit content to children has been associated with earlier sexual behaviour and pregnancies (Shewmaker 2015, p 12)
Section 2.4 Conclusion
The Panel found the advertisement did not treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and did breach Section 2.4 of the Code
Section 2.5: Advertising shall only use language which is appropriate in the circumstances (including appropriate for the relevant audience and medium). Strong or obscene language shall be avoided.
The Panel noted the advertisement was a billboard and that the relevant audience would be broad and include children.
The Panel noted community standards that maintain avoiding offensive language including expletives is an important part of responsible advertising (Snyder 2016, p. 41).
The Panel noted that the Practice Note for this section of the Code includes: “The “f” and “c” words are generally viewed as harmful, unacceptable and not permitted. Nonverbal representations of the “f” word are also generally not permitted … Advertising which uses the ‘f’ word where it has been insufficiently censored so that it can be easily understood by audiences, will be seen to constitute strong language, especially when seen by a broad audience ”
The Panel noted that the advertisement included the phrase “CANCER WON’T BE THE LAST THING THAT F*CKS ME”
The Panel considered that the f-word had been insufficiently censored and that it could be easily understood by the broad audience of the advertisement.
Section 2.5 conclusion
The Panel determined that the advertisement did contain strong or obscene language and did breach Section 2.5 of the Code.
Finding that the ad breached Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Code of Ethics, the Panel upheld the complaint.
This report reveals a disturbing trend in international advertising: a disregard for ethical standards An analysis of six cases, each highlighting violations of the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics, paints a bleak picture The violations range from misleading health claims and cultural appropriation to sexual objectification and fear-mongering tactics. These unethical practices have serious consequences, potentially harming consumers, reinforcing harmful stereotypes, and eroding public trust in brands
The findings underscore an urgent need for the advertising industry to prioritize ethics. By adhering to industry codes and conducting thorough research, advertisers can develop campaigns that resonate with audiences while respecting societal values and cultural sensitivities Self-regulation and responsible practices are essential for the industry's long-term sustainability and credibility. Failure to address these issues could lead to increased complaints, regulatory action, and a loss of consumer trust.
To foster a positive contribution to society, advertisers must adopt a comprehensive ethics framework. This framework should include thorough research on target audiences and potential implications of advertising messages, ensuring diverse representation in the creation and decision-making processes, transparent communication about product claims and potential risks, and a commitment to accountability for the impact of campaigns.
By embracing these recommendations, the advertising industry can shift towards a more ethical and responsible future. This shift will not only build trust with consumers but also contribute to a more informed and equitable society. The time for change is now, and the responsibility lies with advertisers to prioritize ethical considerations and create a positive impact through their work.
AANA 2021, Code of Ethics, AANA, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://aana com au/self-regulation/codes-guidelines/code-of-ethics/>
AANA, 2023, Environmental Claims Code AANA, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://aana.com.au/self-regulation/codes-guidelines/environmental-claims/>.
AANA, 2023, Food and Beverages Advertising Code AANA, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://aana.com.au/self-regulation/codes-guidelines/food-and-beverages-code/>.
Advertising Standards Authority 2023, ASA Ruling on GIRLvsCANCER, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://www asa org uk/rulings/girlvscancer-g23-1218376girlvscancer.html>
Advertising Standards Authority 2023, Ruling on Calvin Klein’s "Explicit Content" Billboard, viewed 22 May 2024, https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-andrulings/rulings html
Advertising Standards Authority 2023, Ruling on Dior’s "Sauvage" Campaign, viewed 22 May 2024, https://www asa org uk/codes-and-rulings/rulings html
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) (2020) Iceland Foods Ltd - A20-1049892Iceland Foods Ltd. https://www.wired.com/story/iceland-advert-banned-christmas/.
Arthur, D, & Quester, P 2003, ‘The Ethicality of Using Fear for Social Advertising’, Australasian Marketing Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 12-27.
Calvin Klein 2023, Apology for the "Explicit Content" Billboard, viewed 22 May 2024, https://www teenvogue com/story/calvin-klein-apology-queerbaiting-bellahadid-ad.
Dior 2023, Apology for the "Sauvage" Campaign, viewed 22 May 2024, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202304/1288975.shtml.
Fulleylove, R 2023, GirlvsCancer partners with BBH on powerful campaign, Creative Review, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://www creativereview co uk/girlvscancer-bbh-ooh-film-advertising/>
Johnson, R 2021, 'Advertising Ethics', in E Spence & B Van Heekeren (eds), Advertising Ethics, Routledge, London, pp. 45-60.
Lavinia, E 2023, 'Self-touch saved my life and now I’m helping women with cancer enjoy sex’, Cosmopolitan, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://www cosmopolitan com/uk/lovesex/sex/a45664424/im-helping-women-with-cancer-enjoy-sex/>.
Ledwaba, K 2024, ‘Consumers complain that Dotsure ad will scare kids, regulator agrees', Advertising News South Africa, 19 January, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://www bizcommunity com/article/consumers-complain-that-dotsure-ad-will-scarekids-regulator-agrees-456099a>.
Ledwaba, K 2024, ‘Dotsure exec defends ad: 'Most South Africans love Kei's story', Advertising News South Africa, 22 January, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://www bizcommunity com/article/lamont-family-defends-dotsure-ad-kei-savedour-lives-901604a>.
Ritchie, H, Roser, M & Rosado, P 2022, Environmental Impacts of Food Production, Our World in Data, viewed 22 May 2024, <https://ourworldindata org/environmentalimpacts-of-food>.
Sheehan, K 2004, Controversies in Contemporary Advertising, SAGE Publications, Inc
Shewmaker, JW 2015, Sexualized media messages and our children : teaching kids to be smart critics and consumers, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, Ebook Central (ProQuest).
Smith, J 2022, 'Cultural appropriation in advertising: The case of Native American imagery', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 123-140.
Snyder, W 2016, Ethics in Advertising : Making the Case for Doing the Right Thing, Taylor & Francis Group, Ebook Central (ProQuest).
Thompson, L & Lee, M 2023, 'The impact of sexualized advertising on public perception', Journal of Advertising Research, vol 58, no 3, pp 213-230.
Wignall, V 2024, Complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority by Adfree Cities, Adfree Cities, viewed 22 May 2024, <https://adfreecities org uk/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/Lets-Eat-Balanced_AHDB_2024_AFC-complaint-to-ASA.pdf>.
Wykes, M & Gunter, B 2020, The Media and Body Image: If Looks Could Kill, Routledge, London
World of Advertising 2021, Dior | Sauvage | The New Elixir | Johnny Depp, 7 September, viewed 27 May 2024, <https://www youtube com/watch?v=0VD9ZIq_6Co>