Sexist advertising remains a hotly contested issue
On Tuesday, the Fair Trading Commission (LK) held a workshop at Zurich City Hall on the topic of sexist advertising. Opinions on the matter were divided: The commission and the advertisers in attendance do not want legal regulation, whereas an equal opportunity officer does.
On Tuesday, the Fairness Commission (LK) held a workshop at Zurich City Hall on the topic of sexist advertising. In her opening remarks, National Council member and LK President Pascale Bruderer outlined the issues she considers essential for the further development of the Fairness Commission. Among other things, she said, it is important to raise awareness of the Commission’s work and, above all, to make it clear to political circles that the LK is not simply a group of advertisers, but a body of specialists and experts of integrity. As the LK further notes in a report on the workshop, City Councilor Kathrin Martelli delivered a message of greeting from the Zurich City Council. As the guardian of public space, she advocated for bold and extroverted advertising, but stressed that it must not cross certain boundaries. She noted that the relevant regulatory efforts in Zurich are working very well, as she is personally confronted with issues surrounding sexist advertising only very rarely.
Marc Schwenninger, legal secretary of the Fair Trading Commission, presented several real-life cases that demonstrated just how close the line can be when determining whether an advertisement is sexist or not.
A Swedish Perspective Jan Fager from the Swedish Ethics Council provided a perspective from another country. In principle, self-regulation in Sweden functions similarly to that in Switzerland; however, a complaint is not required for the Ethics Council to intervene—it also takes action on its own initiative. This naturally has an impact on the volume of cases as well: In the record year of 2004, the council reviewed 740 cases. In Switzerland, the number is approximately 300 cases per year.
During the concluding panel discussion—which featured Pascale Bruderer, the two advertising executives Thomas Städeli of Wirz Werbung and Pius Walker of the Walker Advertising Agency, and Dore Heim, the City of Zurich’s equal opportunity officer—controversial opinions were expressed.
Pascale Bruderer wants to raise awareness of the LK’s work and is not afraid that increased public relations efforts on the commission’s part might draw complaints from the advertising industry. She took the position that no laws are needed, as legislative regulation could entail certain disadvantages.
Sexist Advertising as a Waste of Advertising Budgets Advertising executive Pius Walker also opposes government regulation, arguing that it would be dangerous because it would require banning a great many things; after all, he says, the campaigns featuring sexist content are simply examples of bad advertising. According to Walker, it is first and foremost a waste of advertising budgets. A regulatory body that censors advertising would ultimately protect advertisers from publishing bad ads, and that cannot be the state’s role.
Dore Heim disagreed, arguing that it must be possible to ban advertising in public spaces, since people are exposed to these images there. She noted that some advertisements convey a harmful image of women. The state has a duty to prevent discrimination against one gender. Dore Heim described advertising in construction magazines as absolutely problematic and cause for concern.
When asked whether the agency or the client is more responsible for sexist advertising, Thomas Städeli said that it is actually the clients who tend to exercise restraint. After all, any sanctions would ultimately affect the clients, not the creative team.
The Fair Trading Commission’s Approach In conclusion, Pascale Bruderer summarized the Fair Trading Commission’s approach in three points: First, it is important that children and adolescents receive special protection.
Second, banning billboards is not an effective way to address exposure to gender-discriminatory advertising or depictions of violence, as these occur in numerous other areas and media—not least within the family.
Third, regarding hypersexualization, Bruderer notes that the Fair Trading Commission is not a moral authority; furthermore, he points out that people here operate on the basis of completely different sensibilities, which define entirely different boundaries.
Marc Schwenninger, legal secretary of the Fair Trading Commission, presented several real-life cases that demonstrated just how close the line can be when determining whether an advertisement is sexist or not.
A Swedish Perspective Jan Fager from the Swedish Ethics Council provided a perspective from another country. In principle, self-regulation in Sweden functions similarly to that in Switzerland; however, a complaint is not required for the Ethics Council to intervene—it also takes action on its own initiative. This naturally has an impact on the volume of cases as well: In the record year of 2004, the council reviewed 740 cases. In Switzerland, the number is approximately 300 cases per year.
During the concluding panel discussion—which featured Pascale Bruderer, the two advertising executives Thomas Städeli of Wirz Werbung and Pius Walker of the Walker Advertising Agency, and Dore Heim, the City of Zurich’s equal opportunity officer—controversial opinions were expressed.
Pascale Bruderer wants to raise awareness of the LK’s work and is not afraid that increased public relations efforts on the commission’s part might draw complaints from the advertising industry. She took the position that no laws are needed, as legislative regulation could entail certain disadvantages.
Sexist Advertising as a Waste of Advertising Budgets Advertising executive Pius Walker also opposes government regulation, arguing that it would be dangerous because it would require banning a great many things; after all, he says, the campaigns featuring sexist content are simply examples of bad advertising. According to Walker, it is first and foremost a waste of advertising budgets. A regulatory body that censors advertising would ultimately protect advertisers from publishing bad ads, and that cannot be the state’s role.
Dore Heim disagreed, arguing that it must be possible to ban advertising in public spaces, since people are exposed to these images there. She noted that some advertisements convey a harmful image of women. The state has a duty to prevent discrimination against one gender. Dore Heim described advertising in construction magazines as absolutely problematic and cause for concern.
When asked whether the agency or the client is more responsible for sexist advertising, Thomas Städeli said that it is actually the clients who tend to exercise restraint. After all, any sanctions would ultimately affect the clients, not the creative team.
The Fair Trading Commission’s Approach In conclusion, Pascale Bruderer summarized the Fair Trading Commission’s approach in three points: First, it is important that children and adolescents receive special protection.
Second, banning billboards is not an effective way to address exposure to gender-discriminatory advertising or depictions of violence, as these occur in numerous other areas and media—not least within the family.
Third, regarding hypersexualization, Bruderer notes that the Fair Trading Commission is not a moral authority; furthermore, he points out that people here operate on the basis of completely different sensibilities, which define entirely different boundaries.
