offensive advert
The latest advert, aired on TV beginning the 14th March, is offensive to women as about 100 women are shown running towards a man on a beach wearing only bikinis where the camera focusses on their bums a lot, sexualising them. This advert therefore objectifies women. The advert is sexist as it is only women who are shown are being sexualised. I was shocked and upset when I saw this advert as I already hate the Lynx advert that this has been 'inspired' by. I was happy when that advert stopped being aired (not that the others are any better) and now there is this advert by specsavers. I long for the day when someone finally stops sexist, offensive adverts from being aired because although most men may not have a problem with them, many women do and our opinions matter too. Also just because they are done in a comical way, doesn't make them any less sexist and distressing. In this case by making it slightly comical, that is how Specsavers have gotten away with airing this offensive advert.
As I am going to try to close my account, I thought I would post the messages I have sent on here to help back up my arguement. Just to point out though, in the first message, when I said: 'Although my complaint may sound like it is typical of fundamentalist feminist beliefs', I meant this to mean, whether it sounds like it or not, because I am not familiar with fundamentalist feminist beliefs. All I know is that I believe in equality for women. Anyway, here they are:
1.
Hi JKSurrey,
Thank you for your message. Although my complaint may sound like it is typical of fundamentalist feminist beliefs, i would not say that i have a problem with every image that portrays women as sexually attractive. I simply have a problem with sexualised images of women being used to sell something, as they are using a women's body to draw in the male customers.
I also appreciate that not everyone will believe that that is the only side to women, but considering that a majority of advertising these days involves sexualising them, people will be exposed to it an awful lot, and may be heavily influenced by this (depends on the person of course). As children are watching tv more these days than they used to, then they will be exposed to it more. It has been proven that teenagers gain a lot of their knowledge through the media these days, so what are they learning when they see sexualised images of women constantly? Seeing these kinds of adverts only drills in the message that this is a large and the main facet of women (if there are less adverts showing women in a non-sexualised way) and may neglect other important facets of women, like their personality.
I also realise that the women would have been happy to participate in the adverts but it is not those women i am concerned for. It is the everyday woman who is going to suffer the effects of these adverts when the men (who are influenced by the adverts) treat them with less respect and who after years of being constantly bombarded by sexualised images of women may begin to believe that that is the most/ only important thing about a woman.
I could go on and list many other bits of evidence to support my view and i will if you wish, but I doubt very much I will be able to change your mind. I tend to find that people either agree strongly with this belief or disagree strongly.
Just to comment on the point you made about men not complaining about the imagery that is presented of them. I agree that I have found men don't seem to have a problem with it, however the way they are presented is done a much more lighthearted way and does not occur nearly as often as it does for women. Also, men are less likely to suffer any negative effects of this, due to the lighthearted manner that they are presented in. I appreciate that the specsavers advert is done in a lighthearted way, I think i simply don't like it because it is copying the lynx advert, which is not done in such a way.
I don't have a problem with many things that present women as attractive human beings. I believe it empowers us and gives us confidence. Afterall, we have a right to do what we like. I just don't like it when women's bodies are used to attract male customers, where in the case of this advert they are shown without identity as they all running together because clearly the man does not care about attracting just one nice woman but lots, uncaring of anything like personality but rather that they have a female body that is on show. This does not empower women at all.
I hope i have explained myself better to you. Please do not respond if your message is intended to insult or upset me.
regards,
Sarah.
2.Hi again,
I have only just noticed your message here, so that is why I am responding after adding comments to the complaint page. I do not have a very low opinion of men (edit- If it is it of relevence I have a boyfriend who is very supportive and is also against sexist advertising), but I cannot say I have been as lucky as you to know many men who don't disrespect women. All of those men I know who are like that regularly look at lads mags etc, and have been very offensive in the way they have spoken to me.
I am not denying that some adverts are offensive to men, but as I said before they are not nearly as many. It is still bad though.
All I can say about the comment you made about TV advertising and the London underground advertising being attacked is that I am glad. I do not see why advertising should be allowed just because some people like it and don't get offended by it. Surely it is more important to get rid of it if it offends some people. Why should women like myself suffer feeling unequal and objectified as a gender just because men like to see these thing?
I do not have a problem with nuts and zoo, etc. I just hate being forced to see it when it on display for all to see in newsagents! Men can buy what they like just don't make people see it who don't want to.
I also think, good for your female friend who works in a lap dancing club. If she enjoys it then good. If women want to do that then thats fine. But they must surely be aware that the men that go there can't be the most respectful people when it comes to women. If they go to places like that, where they pay to watch a woman objectify/sell herself, then what is that going to do to their overall perception of women? I just think its sad. But then its up to them what they do. As long as thatstuff stays well out of my life and I don't have to see it going on then its ok. Which is why I have a problem with adverts and mags etc, because you can't help but see them.
I think it is good that there are low levels of sexual assault in Holland, but don't you think its bad that it seems that what we need to do to lower rates of rape etc, is to allow/encourage more women to get into the sex industry? Is that really the way forward for women? Is that all we are good for?
My goodness, I completely wish for a free society. To be perfectly honest though I don't think that can ever be a reality. To allow freedom for these adverts and magazines to be shown for all to see, is taking away the freedom to feel equal and respected by myself and so many other women. Especially regarding nuts and zoo, etc, to be forced to see this soft porn when you don't even want to (especially when you are ok with it as long as you don't have to see it) really wears you down. There have been some good studies done into this, and it has been found that women's self esteem can be lowered by this considerably, and women even begin to loose respect for themself. Therefore they end up objectifiying themselves. It doesnt help that the whole thing is glamourised, as this encourges lots of naive vulnerable young girls into the buisness.
Anyway, I saw the message you sent to Liza03, and i thought it was rather nasty, hence my comment thanking her for her comment and how some people can be quite hostile in their responses. I feel I maybe made a mistake in posting a complaint on here as I find it very distressing when people starting offending one another, and it was never my attention to offend anyone.
Therefore if possible I am going to delete my account off here, and try to be content with the knowledge that I am complained to ASA, who will hopefully do something about the advert.
Regards,
Sarah.
Just another point I feel I should make, in the comment I made thanking Liza03, I was not implying that Liza03 was being offensive. Sorry for not being clear enough. It is good to know that I am not alone believing that adverts should not be sexist.
Sorry I forgot to mention, if it is of any interest...I am also 21 and in my case I most certainly would not want to find out how to appear in such an advert.
Hi again,
I just thought I would post this comment to thank Liza03 for sharing that message with everyone! I have often also found that when I simply express that I am offended by something I perceive to be offensive to women, there is always someone who responds with a lot of hostility and anger.
I think it is a shame that we can't all discuss matters such as this without trying to offend one another.
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
negligence
I went into my local Specsavers store and was served by Tom Simpson. I found this fellow rather dull/boring/dim/argumentative/stroppy/unhelpful and a tad disrespectful. Certainly not a chap one would like to encounter again! Apparently this fellow is the Director! The mind only boggles at this ourage!
Sir Matthew Malcolm Fraser Dalgarno
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
Is this a spoof?
How should onerespond to or comment about this?
Replied
refused free treatment which im entitled to
i had an appointment to go for my routine eye examination i have an nhs tax credit medical exemption card but the woman who i believe to be called sharon ward who was checking my details instore told me i was not covered for it and would have to pay for the test and any glasses i needed, i refused to pay and left whe i got home i chcked on the web to see if i was entitled and i was my husband also phone the tax credit helplne just to be sure, i called the store and spoke to marion who confirmed i was entitled and made me a new appointment.i want this sharon dealt with howmany others has she told this to and have paid when they didnt need to for all i know she could be keeping the money herself she was adiment i was not allowed free eyecare and that my card only entitled me to free gp and dental care she even told me to go to the p.o to get an hc 1 form to try and get help with the cost i did but they dont have those forms and havent for a while you have to get them from the gp so it just shows how long she has been pulling this crap i can be contacted on [protected]@googlemail.com
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer's satisfaction.
Specsavers
waste of time
Just 2 weeks ago I turned 19, now I booked a eye test last week because a letter came though saying about my old eye test that I should get another because its been 2 years.
So I called up the branch I was at, which is ilfords one, the woman over the phone asked for my details and my age, I told her im 19 and all of the details she needed, she then said it wouldnt be free unless I am in education, I said "yes I am in education ill bring my new letter of acceptance", she said its fine.
Comes to 17th now, I got to the store after having a hour drive back home from a wedding of a family member, which I wanted to stay longer with my cosins so I can stay the week there, as soon as I got there they told me I cant have it, and I have to pay for it, I asked the reason why because I was told that all I needed was my acceptance letter, they asked the manager of the store and he denied me my eye test, fair enough I though, they dont get paid for it by nhs and I need some sort of cefitcate, so they said they will do it if I pay for it, I told them they wasted my time completely, made me rush home from almost 30 miles journey which was 1 hour just to tell me to # off home, I would of have to go all the way home, bring my credit card which I left there, and come back just for them to onces again, tell me to # off lol, because I would have to book another eye test on another day.
Now, what you think of that? To me ill rather just go someplace else then waste my time with that branch, since they so enjoy pratical jokes, they did the same stunt almost 2 years ago with me, didnt bother booking a eye test back then haha!
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
Specsavers were wrong you are still 19 and in full time education. It is only when you turn 20 that you will need an HC1 that is if you still are in full time education.
Also it is unlawful to be turned away for an eyetest, or dental treatment etc if you did not have appropriate proof. If you feel bitterly you should complain to AOP or GOC
Ilford Specsavers are TERRIBLE! I completely agree with you. It usually takes me 2 hours there for one contact lense check! I received a letter from them early December saying my lenses would be ready for collection on 19th dec - so I went to the store (baring in mind I have moved house, and now live over an hour drive away!) only for them to tell me they don't have my lenses in store, and as I havent had an eye test in the last year they cant give them to me! Then why send me the letter?! What a wasted journey! I've had SOOOO many bad experiences with the Ilford branch - full of student workers who dont give a damn! I have now moved to another branch who are MUCH better and professional. And I'm STILl waiting for the Ilford branch to send me my lenses - having to wear my glasses because of their inability to post my lenses to me!
Please be aware that the NHS have strict guidelines regarding the provision of eye examinations, and that you are only qualify for an NHS eye exam if you are UNDER 19 and in full time education. If you are 19 you would have to complete an HC1 form prior to the eye exam to see if you qualify for financial help towards NHS services (prescriptions, wigs, spectacle vouchers etc). This is the case at every opticians in the UK who are bound by the regulations set out by the NHS
same here the staff at the shipley branch of specsavers gave me bifocal glassess which were set to high caused me severe headaches resulting in a visit to the doctors the staff were rude and also the manager was very rude and un helpful they do not appear to have any complaints procedure whatever will never use specsavers ever again i think people should say a new slogan ( sorry we went to specsavers )
The swansea branch perscribed me a perscription that I could not see with for two years- despite telling them I could not see they simply responded with- its just like that for some people. Finally had the correct perscription with a small independent optician in mumbles that I can see with- much better service and testing than I ever recieved in specsavers- would never use or reccommend them!
When I complained to the manager they offered no help !
Waste of time and money!
Not surprised in the least, the staff in the specsavers branch in Aberdeen are rude and unprofessional.
prices are deceptive, specsavers is fraud
The prices as advertised are overly deceptive. A £85 frame and lens will end up costing you £200 -£250 because the original lens that comes with the frame is as thick as a glass bottle and by the way it wont fit into the frame. You will have to get the thin version of the frame which will cost you £150 with the £85 frame, all adding up to £235. To add...
Read full complaint and 10 commentswrong eye test
I went into Specsavers in January to have an eye test done and to get a new lens as well. When I picked up the glasses it did not feel right as the prescription seemed way too strong. So I went and told them this, and they said that an incorrect prescription has been put in, so they replaced it with the prescription from the eye test. Well, it did not feel...
Read full complaint and 18 comments
Recent comments about Specsavers Optical Group company
lens scratch
DecorMyEyes.com / EyewearTown
37 reviews
EyeWear Town
12 reviews
Beach Eye Care
2 reviews
Eyeglass Direct
3 reviews
Zenni Optical
53 reviews
Spec saver ads are generally sexist biased against males. I wish their ad showed an older male telling his daughter that he was going to leave his estate to a sexy young female gardener. This would cause an outcry by the feminists.
Took my young son to Chingford branch for an eye test. I couldn't believe the way the optician was handling him - she was talking very rough to him when he failed to position his eyes/head (As young children naturally do) in the direction asked. I sat there gritting my teeth as she got very stern with him with using a strong voice tone, as well as moving his head firmly whilst telling him "You're not doing what I told you!" and "Don't touch that, put it back right now!". I kicked myself for not challenging her unproffessional approach, particularly to a young child. But I reassured myself that it won't be much longer and I wouldn't be able to get his test done anywhere else given the time that I had. I left feeling that people should not work in these careers if they have no training in how to interact with the young. It's crucial that patience, sence of humour will comfort customers as well as provide a smile on her face, which never emerged from the moment I entered the branch. Money is important, but looking happy is priceless and sole fulfilling. Have transferred to another provider by the way. Soon after leaving, I was talking about the experience to someone and to my surprise, a passer by said "Sorry to butt in-your not the only person to have had that experience as I know a lot of people who have gone elsewhere because of the treatment their children have had with the rough handling on their children". Disgraceful Chingford branch!
Just a quick point. If I walk into the newsagents to get a paper/magazine, the magazines showing near naked women on the cover are at eye level rather than being top shelf. It's not possible not to see them so actually we are being forced to look at them! Censorship would be to say do not sell/produce them at all. I think the point of previous posters is that if they were put high up on the shelf we wouldn't be forced to look at them and children wouldn't grow up with the idea that to be successful as a woman you should conform to the idea of what is attractive, and strip and sell your image for men around the country to look at.
As for the advert - should this really be shown during the day? Also all the models are of a similar size so it enforces the message that women should be a certain size and figure.
The only women that would find this offensive are ones who can't find a bikini to fit them.
Hey check this out - well done Specsavers for sticking with a winning formula!
http://uk.stylelist.com/2010/05/11/kelly-brooks-got-specs-appeal/?icid=main|uk|dl7|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fuk.stylelist.com%2F2010%2F05%2F11%2Fkelly-brooks-got-specs-appeal%2F
The silence from Sarah, Lisa and Rachel is overwhelming!
We are all heartily sick of a politically correct minority imposing their views on others. People should be free to choose what they watch. I agree with the comments above that make the point very clearly that if you don't want to look at something NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO DO SO - SO DON'T LOOK!
Looks like the libertarians are winning this one as the censors seem to have given up!
I'm offended by this complaint ... and the overworn arguments that go along with it. I'm also more than a little tired of hearing how it only takes a few complaints like hers to have adverts like this removed when it is clear to see that an overwhelming majority of viewers either like the advert, or if they don't they care so little about the topic that they do not bother to register their feelings by making a complaint. Either way, the feelings of a petulant minority are being given far too much consideration if it means that the massive majority are affected by them
While the OP has made such a big deal about an advert "objectifying women" it's unsurprising that she fails to make any complaint about the adverts that directly insult men (it's so easy a man could do it etc.).
Keep your gender war to yourself and grow up. There's no such thing as gender equality so stop pining for it. Men and women are different. Just as men are different from men, and women are different from women. Claiming parity is as ridiculous as it is futile.
I find it strange that almost every advert these days seems to be for female sanitary products, weight loss, or 'clothing for the larger woman' ... but I'm not going to complain about them. I assume there are millions of women out there who can't wait to see the next outfit available available in size 16-20, happy in the knowledge that if the excitement gets too much for them then Tena lady will be there to cover up any embarrassment. But just because I don't appreciate something I see no reason to attempt and remove it from others.
If you want to make a complaint then boycott Specsavers and refuse to buy their product, but stop trying to ruin other's entertainment. I like the advert and hope it stays around for a long time.
What an interesting, if slightly pointless, debate.
I wonder how the women that are offended by this advert would feel if it were 100 men in tighties (torso/chest uncovered I might add as is the norm for males in that type of advert) running towards a female that is then portrayed to look geeky and conventionally unnattractive.
I suppose I can answer that myself in that the advertisers (in this case specsavers) would have been wrong to objectify a woman into looking bad simply because she wears bad specs. The 100+ near naked men would, of course, be acceptable.
I would love, at this point, to say that I am a mid-twenties woman... but alas, unsurprisingly I am not.
So I say this to all advertisers taking time out of your busy and creative schedules to read this:
Stop using tried and tested winning formulae to sell your products. You don't deserve the money we will give you for creating adverts that provoke conversation and keep people saying your names. You offend the minority and therefore must cease and desist. How dare you attempt to manipulate us into buying products that we need.
Forget your catchy slogans. Everytime I want car insurance I find myself at Go Compare. or the other one. Simples.
When I look at buying a new car, I instantly sing We buy any car (dot com).
And when it comes to insulating windows in my property... well... you buy 1, you get 1 free! I said you buy 1...
Now... for being made to feel unequal, objectified... inadequate you might say... Anyone for a Diet Coke?
And yet, I am not offended by that nor any advert. I have this (seemingly rare given some people's 'rantings' that I have read) ability to take things at face value and then look a little further if required.
They are in the business for a reason. They know what they are doing. If I could afford it, I would use them to sell my products. I couldn't give 2 monkey's backsides if they offend over-sensitive potential customers.
Walkers got it spot on with their 'naked' advert. Gary Gary Linekarrrrrr making himself look buff to fit in. It is a social commentary alongside a well thought out advert. Tongue in cheek. Just like the specsavers advert.
And now for my more serious comments!
Sarah, Love (!), you have made so many opposing arguments that maybe you need to decide on what you actually believe before ranting and trying to bring a good company down. A few comments I want to explore are:
'I dont mind lads mags... don't force them on me' - DONT LOOK!
'I think it is good... Holland... Is that all we are good for?' - WAY TO TAKE THE ARGUMENT WELL OUT OF CONTEXT!
'I would love to live in a free society' - AND YET PREVIOUSLY MADE AN OPINIONATED COMMENT ON LAPDANCING BEING A SAD LIFESTYLE CHOICE! (the buggers earn more than I do and for doing far less!)
'Women's self esteem lowered' - BECAUSE NON-LAD MAGS DONT DO THE SAME? THE MESSAGE IS THE SAME TAKEN FROM A DIFFERENT SIDE (to clarify; lad mags = showing the fine female form of skinny girls... non-lad mags = telling the stories of the fine female form that has struggled to, but successfully, LOST weight. I'm pretty confident that your girly mags came before our lad mags).
Now, I have marked this response as Neutral as I can see an opposite side to what I am saying and may even agree with it to some degree. Just not in the way that you chose to do it.
Great comments Jubba. I agree 100% with you. In fact I have not come across anyone yet who thinks the ad should be banned.
And seriously, just HOW distressed can you get over an advert showing a few bikini-clad women and a topless bloke on a beach? Surely there's much more important things to get distressed about, like the war in Afghanistan, the homeless kids on our streets, the cutting down of the rainforests etc? While you're at revolutionising the global ad industry, maybe you can stop the ads with women advertising cleaning products, baby food, slimming cereals etc. Is it not sexist to show a woman prancing around in a nice new, snug red swim suit after losing all that weight thanks to a breakfast? Why not a chubby bloke? The specsaver ad is no more sexist that the majority of advertising we see day in, day out.