The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered Unilever to withdraw an advertisement for AXE deodorant. The advertisement depicts sultry-looking angels falling from the sky, seemingly drawn irresistibly to a man who has used AXE deodorant. A voice-over stated “New Axe deodorant. Even angels will fall”.

A complaint was received from an offended member of the public who stated that, according to the Bible, angels are God’s messengers and the suggestion that angels would fall for a man wearing this deodorant is incompatible with his beliefs as a Christian.

The ASA has a Code of Advertising Practice to which advertisements must adhere. One of the general principles of the ASA Code is that advertisements should not offend against good taste or decency or be offensive to public or sectoral values and sensitivities. In considering whether an advertisement is offensive, the ASA will generally give consideration to various factors including the context, medium, likely audience and prevailing standards. Fair enough. But whose moral standard or sense of decency will apply? The enquiry gets especially tricky when the rather sticky topic of religion is involved.

This is not the first time that the ASA has received a complaint against an advertisement which has had a religious theme or has used religious symbolism. Probably the most well-known of these was the Virgin Mobile advertisement in 2006 which depicted a man suffering a heart attack due to his costly monthly cell phone bill and ascending to heaven. The depiction of heaven in the advertisement included scantily-dressed female angels carrying beer and washing sports cars. Despite the fact that a large number of complaints was received by the ASA in respect of the Virgin Mobile advertisement, the ASA was guided by the principle that the test is whether the hypothetical “reasonable person” would find the commercial offensive and that this fictional “reasonable person” is neither hyper-critical nor over-sensitive. It held that the images of heaven were of a secular, non-denominational heaven and ruled that the hypothetical reasonable person would immediately recognise the humour and exaggeration and understand that this was not a realistic depiction of a particular religion or its concept of heaven. The ASA Directorate, in the Virgin Mobile ruling, commented that, while the commercial had clearly alienated a particular part of the Christian audience, there was no basis to find that the Christian sector, as a whole, had been offended. The ASA (sensibly, I think) found that the advertisement did not contravene the ASA Code.

Other advertisers have not been so lucky. Both Mavericks, which used an image of a woman in prayer holding a set of rosary beads and the pay-off line “believe” to promote a strip club and GHD Hair, which had used an image of a woman with rosary beads in her hands and the pay-off line “May my luscious locks wrap everyone on earth around my little finger” and “Thy will be done”, were ordered to withdraw their advertisements.

In the case of the “Even angels will fall” advertisement for AXE deodorant, the ASA Directorate took a surprisingly literal approach and found that the commercial communicates that saintly creatures would give up their heavenly status and fall from grace for a man, a concept which Christians would be likely to find offensive. It further held that the advertisement differed from the Virgin Mobile advertisement in that this commercial takes place in the “real world” and not in the fantasy of the hero character. The ASA Directorate seemed to have been particularly perturbed by the fact that the fallen angels were not simply shown coming to earth but rather crashing to earth. Of course, these were the very aspects which, in my view, indicated both humour and exaggeration on the part of the advertiser and were clear indications that the advertisement should not be taken too seriously.

The ASA generally takes a realistic approach to advertising, recognising that advertisements make use of parody, humour and exaggeration to get their message across. It is surprising that it came to this rather harsh decision on the basis of a single complaint from a possibly sensitive viewer.

A quick search on YouTube reveals a multitude of banned AXE television advertisements worldwide and it remains to be seen whether Unilever will go to the trouble of appealing the ASA’s decision. Either way, it seems unlikely that this is the last clever (yet controversial) advertisement we will see for this product.

For more information contact:
Kelly Thompson, partner, Adams & Adams
012 432 6000