|
|
 |
An Open Letter to SAfm: The Letter of the Law, or the spirit of the ancestors? - Irresponsible Advertising in South Africa
Submitted by Judith King on behalf of Amnesty International, Durban Chapter, SA and HIVAN, UKZN. 23 October 2006.
|
A growing number of individuals and groups are deeply concerned about the generally dismissive and exploitative approaches adopted by business and communications agencies towards their role as social - as well as commercial ?– marketers, and the consequent harm done to efforts to halt the spread of HIV and end violence against women and children.
These concerns were deepened following the broadcast of a set of topically linked interviews during the 8 October 2006 edition of Media@SAfm, with Professor Piet Delport of the Association for Communication and Advertising (ACA) and Gail Schimmel of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), interviewed by presenter Jeremy Maggs.
Inter alia , these interviews focused on ?“the letter vs. the spirit of the law?” in relation to standards of advertising, and consumers?’ responses and rights in terms of the Code of Advertising Practice. The topic was introduced as arising from the necessity for advertising agencies to become more informed about legalities and codes in the conceptualisation of marketing communications content and dissemination, given the increasing levels of consumer awareness and activism around acceptable norms of advertising across a range of civil society concerns.
The particular case that had generated widespread public censure was a partial basis for these conversations, namely: six billboard adverts for Teazers Strip-club, which have been criticised as portraying - on a highly visible outdoor format, leaving little opportunity for parents to shield the material from children?’s sight ?– gratuitous sexual content.
Maggs referred to an article by Adele Shevel appearing in that day?’s Sunday Times on this issue, which covered several examples of public outcry regarding over-sexualisation in the media in general (?“Gripes keep ad watchdog busy?”). The ensuing radio discussion revolved around ideological positions held by some agencies, their clients, and ASA, specifically on what could or should be defined as ?“irresponsible?” and ?“dangerous?” content.
The speakers opined on whether or not consumers were justified in taking offence at such content on the grounds of it being interpreted as pornographic, or at least harmful to young people and others in vulnerable circumstances. Public complaints had pointed to the damaging effects of messaging that conveys a negative social construction of meaning around women (as sexual utilities), and that glamourises risky sexual choices.
Considering the context of rampaging HIV transmission and staggering rape statistics in South Africa, some of the speakers?’ remarks were unforgivable in and of themselves. Astoundingly, the co-epidemics of HIV and gender violence were not acknowledged at all by either the presenter or the guests. One would imagine that, as figures speaking for the marketing industry and its regulatory body, interacting with a seasoned journalist who specialises in media and marketing issues, they would have recognised the fundamental logic of foregrounding and analysing this context.
Why is it that ?“experts?” in media and marketing speak on a certain day about ?“AIDS-fatigue?” in journalism and audience reception, only to ignore the plethora of statistics and anecdotes of rape and HIV on another?
Real-life snapshots of our country?’s macro-social environment give the lie to some of the ignoble comments made by Delport, Schimmel and Maggs during this broadcast, transcribed briefly as follows:
To read the full letter, please visit HIVAN's Advocacy Alert page here: https://hivan.org.za/Resources/advocacy_alert.asp or via the link on the righthand side of this page. |
| Was this article helpful to you? |
 ?50%???? ?50%
|
|
Back
|
|
|
|
