ASA rejects flood of complaints over 'harmful' Dusk ad

The ad watchdog has dismissed calls to ban a tongue in cheek TV ad for furniture retailer Dusk, despite 40 complaints that the spot not only objectified men, but was both harmful and offensive.

The TV ad in question featured an older woman “Kitty” sitting in a quirkily decorated room, sipping tea while speaking to the camera. She said: “Of course I thought about going down the traditional route, you know, visiting a big old showroom, flicking through endless swatches and then ordering a sofa for well over a grand. But instead, I decided to buy direct from dusk.com and have money left over to pay Carlo!”

A topless man, with his head out of the frame, then walked into the room and poured tea into the woman’s cup. The woman then looked at the camera and said, “Dusk sayin’.”

However, the Advertising Standards Authority was forced to investigate following the dozens of complaints.

In response, Dusk insisted the ad portrayed a glamorous and aspirational lifestyle. It was light-hearted and tongue in cheek, and the firm believed it was unlikely to cause serious offence; there was no serious nudity, and Carlo was not sexually explicit or suggestive. He was admired and respected by the main character, Kitty.

Dusk added that it was clear that Carlo was viewed as someone who performed a paid-for job Kitty appreciated, rather than an object, as she referred to him by his name. The focus of the ad was on Kitty and the Dusk product throughout, and it did not shift to focus onto Carlo. Further focus was drawn to the product and price by a roundel popping on screen while Carlo was also on screen.

The firm argued that the ad avoided gender stereotypical roles and ensured that neither character was belittled or made fun of. It considered that seeing a man carry out his job in a role that would historically and stereotypically be viewed as associated with women, deconstructed gender stereotypes and confirmed that anyone could undertake such roles.

TV clearing house Clearcast also said that the ad was light-hearted, good humour. For almost the entire duration of the ad, viewers only saw Kitty. Her visually eclectic style, and her shopping at Dusk was the ad’s focus, with Carlo briefly appearing at the very end.

When Carlo did enter the screen, he was introduced by name, and was not merely referred to as staff, service or any other potentially dismissive term. His attire, while bare-chested, was smart trousers and shoes, which established that the relationship with Kitty was professional and amicable. His demeanour was professional during his limited time on screen, simply holding out a tray to Kitty.

There was no physical interaction between the two, including no salacious or sexual behaviours. His role as a novelty butler was not demeaned, sexualised or exploited in any way. For those reasons, Clearcast did not believe that the overall nature of the ad had breached the code with regards to widespread or serious harm and offence.

In its ruling, the ASA said that the ad depicted an exaggerated scenario, and viewers were likely to recognise the its surreal and comical tone. Because of that, it considered that Carlo’s portrayal did not objectify the character.

While the watchdog acknowledged that some viewers might find the ad distasteful, it concluded that the ad was not irresponsible or likely to cause serious or widespread offence and cleared it for future activity.