Advertising Appeals Committee clears Netflorist's Valentines Day ad of sexism

The ad, which sparked debate due to its depiction of a woman spitting into a coffee mug as a humorous punishment for a forgotten Valentine's Day, did not contravene the Code of Advertising Practice.

The Complaint and Netflorist’s Defense

Robert Adams lodged his complaint on 27 January 2024, describing the ad as “disgusting and wrong on many levels.” He argued that it portrayed repugnant behavior unsuitable for general viewing and suggested a racial undercurrent by featuring a Black woman in the act. He also criticised the ad for perpetuating sexist stereotypes about romance and Valentine's Day.

Netflorist responded by removing the ad from paid advertising but left it accessible on YouTube. They defended their commercial as a humorous spoof without any racist or sexist intent. They clarified that the actress was chosen for her talent, not her race, and emphasised that the ad was meant to be visceral and amusing, albeit unconventional.

ARB Directorate and AAC's Considerations

The ARB Directorate reviewed the complaint and found no contravention of the advertising code. Adams appealed this decision, leading to the AAC hearing on 30 May 2024. Neither Adams nor Netflorist attended the hearing, so the AAC based their decision on the submitted documents and the advertisement itself.

ARB clears MultiChoice of racial stereotyping in streaming ad

Karabo Ledwaba  22 Apr 2024

Key Clauses of the Advertising Code

The AAC focused on three relevant clauses from the Code of Advertising Practice:

1. Offensive Advertising (Clause 1 of Section II): This clause prohibits ads that offend good taste or decency or are offensive to public or sectoral values, unless they are reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society.

2. Discrimination (Clause 3.4 of Section II): This clause prohibits discriminatory content unless it is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom.

3. Gender Stereotyping (Clause 3.5 of Section II): This clause prohibits gender stereotyping or negative gender portrayal unless it is reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society.

Findings and Conclusion

The AAC concluded that the advertisement did not contravene any of these clauses:

• Offensive Advertising: The ad, while potentially uncomfortable to watch, was intended as a spoof and did not show actual spit, thus not likely to cause serious offense.
• Discrimination: There was no substantial evidence that the ad was discriminatory. The protagonist’s race was incidental, and the ad’s humour was based on the situation, not on racial undertones.
• Gender Stereotyping*: The ad’s portrayal of a woman being upset about Valentine’s Day was seen as a reflection of societal norms rather than a sexist stereotype. The ad did not suggest women are inherently vindictive but rather emphasised the importance of feeling valued in a relationship.

In light of these considerations, the AAC upheld the ARB's original decision, affirming that the Netflorist advertisement did not violate the Code of Advertising Practice.