Fine for kids to view Thin Lizzy’s breasts
A television commercial showing female models struggling with their bras is fine for daytime tv, say advertising watchdogs.
A television commercial showing female models struggling with their bras is fine for daytime tv, say advertising watchdogs.
A television commercial showing female models struggling with their bras is fine for daytime tv, say advertising watchdogs.
The Advertising Standards Authority has dismissed two complaints against the Thin Lizzy Miracle Bra, saying there are no grounds to proceed.
Complainant M Miles said the commercial should be aired at a later time.
“It is fairly explicit and not suitable for children’s viewing. One gets a good look at women’s breasts being adjusted and it is quite revealing.
"I would not have minded one bit if my kids weren’t sitting next to me. Don’t take it off the air, just view it later,” was the comment.
However, the judgment from the ASA notes that “models who were wearing a bra without a shirt were no more exposed than if there would have been in a bikini.”
ASA chairman Hilary Souter was “sympathetic to the issue raised in the complaint” but the advert was not socially irresponsible and did not breach community standards.
It had also been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society so there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.
The ASA also dismissed complaints against a Tip Top bread tv commercial which shows a boy turning into a Transformer-like robot.
Complainant W Samodien said showing the boy finishing his homework at superfast speed after eating Tip Top bread encouraged bad homework practices.
However, Ms Souter noted the “hyperbolic nature of the advertisement and the fantastic scenario of a child turning into a robot while eating toast”.
She said the commercial was highlighting how eating the bread gave you “super-human powers” and did not encourage bad homework practices.
“Most viewers would recognize the hyperbolic nature of the advertisement,” the judgement said.
Ms Souter ruled the advert did not deceive or mislead and was prepared with a due sense of responsibility and it did not breach the code of ethics.