Advertising Regulatory Board clears Lifebuoy Soap ad of 'inappropriate content'

Inappropriate?

The advertisement in question features a young boy being playfully challenged by his father to prove that he has bathed. The boy, dressed in a towel, is seen dancing and lathering himself with Lifebuoy soap, which promises “100% stronger germ protection.” The ad aims to promote the product as a full-body cleanser, using a family-oriented scenario to highlight the importance of hygiene.

However, the complainant argued that the ad was inappropriate for his age and could be interpreted as suggestive. “It is highly inappropriate and like gold to people who have ill intentions,” the complainant stated, adding that the boy’s actions should have been limited to washing less intimate areas like his hands or legs.

Unilever’s response defended the ad as a relatable depiction of a child’s playful bath time, asserting that the boy’s behaviour was typical of children enjoying a fun, family-approved routine. The company emphasised that the scene aimed to promote hygiene in a wholesome manner, in line with Lifebuoy’s family-centric branding. Unilever further pointed out that the creative process adhered to strict guidelines to ensure age-appropriate content.

IAB South Africa collaborates with ARB to launch the first Content Creator Charter

11 Oct 2024

Normal

After reviewing the case, the ARB acknowledged the sensitivity of the complaint but ultimately sided with the advertiser. The board’s Directorate, while admitting to a degree of discomfort with the combination of the boy’s dancing and the visible section of his body, determined that the commercial did not breach Clause 14 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice, which prohibits the sexualisation of children in advertisements.

The Directorate's ruling noted that while the imagery may raise discomfort in some viewers, it did not constitute a portrayal of the child as sexually appealing or provocative. The decision also highlighted that boys are not generally subject to the same standards of bodily exposure as girls in public, and that showing a boy shirtless is culturally acceptable in most contexts. In response to concerns about the scene’s cropping, the board suggested that tighter framing might alleviate discomfort, but it was not deemed essential for compliance.

“Washing the body without clothes on is a normal part of hygiene, and the child is simply shown enjoying his bath,” the ruling stated, concluding that the ad “does not involve sexual innuendo” and is therefore compliant with the Code.