Are you offended?

"Read more" for the UK's top 10 ad complaints...

Some of these were already adlanded, but the rest were new to me (either that or my short-term memory loss is kicking in again).

I love the descriptions...
"Complainants argued that this poster ad was blasphemous but the ASA decided that an investigation was not justified and that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence."
"Complainants expressed concern that the posters denigrated travelling showmen..."

Plenty of other goodies to read, along with pix of the ads that were under the gun. Good times. Fun. (found via fark)

Q: "Naff" is a swear word!? Does this mean that the WB's Pinky and the Brain was obscene?

Virgin Mobile
125 complaints – upheld

Complainants found this spoof hand-written letter purporting to be from an unhappy mobile phone customer offensive and challenged the tone and language used. The letter, which was inserted into several national news-papers and magazines, also attracted concerns because it was inserted into publications that had content for children. The Authority upheld the complaints, and considered that the ad was aggressive and offensive in tone and that it was not clear that the insert was advertising material.

Lever Fabergé Ltd
38 complaints – not upheld

The language used in this magazine ad led to objections that the term ‘shag me’ was offensive. The target audience of the three magazines that had published the advertisement was between 20 and 60 years old and the ASA agreed with the advertisers that the term was one commonly used in society, often with humour. Although some people had been offended, the ASA considered the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Queercompany trading as queercompany.com
100 complaints – not justified

This ad drew complaints from members of the public who found the posters, displayed on sites in London, offensive and unsuitable in a medium that could be seen by children. The ASA had earlier conducted a formal investigation, when the same poster had been displayed on one central London site, and did not uphold the complaints, concluding that the poster was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or harm children. The ‘not justified’ decision was consistent with that earlier ruling.

Guinness United Distillers & Vintners Ltd
48 complaints – upheld
The ASA agreed with complainants that this advertisement was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, because members of the public would believe that the man’s penis was visible. Although the ad was intended to be humorous, the ASA considered that the poster could encourage excessive drinking and told the advertisers not to use the approach again.

Paddy Power
49 complaints – upheld
The betting odds superimposed next to both women on this poster prompted complaints that the ad was ageist, offensive and demeaned the elderly. Although the advertisement was part of a wider campaign, the ASA decided that this particular approach mocked the mobility of the elderly because many readers were likely to interpret the poster as referring to the women’s chances of being hit by the truck. The ASA concluded the poster was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and told the advertisers to withdraw it.