Dog 'lover' ad not suggestive
BEING sprung in bed with a dog dressed in women's underwear is an inoffensive way to sell cars, the Advertising Standards Bureau has ruled.
The advertising watchdog has hosed down a complaint that the 60-second television commercial, from the Australian arm of US car maker Chrysler, suggests that ''the man has had a sexual encounter with the dog'' after receiving complaints that this was what the ad had implied.
The ad for the Jeep Compass from media agency CumminsRoss turns sour when a man interrupts the bond formed between a woman and her dog.
One scene shows the dog, jealous of the relationship forming between the man and woman, dressed in women's lingerie and sitting on the bed next to the sleeping man.
However, a complaint received by the bureau described the scene as ''highly inappropriate and incredibly offensive'' because it included ''a reference to bestiality in primetime TV hours''.
''Nothing actually takes place between the dog and the boyfriend but having to explain to a young person why the dog is dressed in her red corset and why she then gets rid of the boyfriend is something which should not happen as a result of watching a show as harmless as Antiques Roadshow,'' the complaint reads.
Chrysler Australia did not respond to the ad watchdog's request for comment.
''The board noted the complainants' concerns that the advertisement is suggestive of bestiality and considered that whilst the woman in the advertisement just sees her lingerie-clad dog in bed with her partner, the viewers have seen the dog dress itself and are aware that the situation has been contrived by the dog without the man's knowledge,'' the determination reads.
''The board considered that the woman's interpretation of why the dog is dressed in lingerie and in bed with her partner is not clear cut and that whilst one interpretation, shared by the complainants, is of sexual activity, another interpretation could be that she is annoyed that the man has dressed the dog in her lingerie.''
The ASB noted that some people could find the advertisement to be in poor taste.
However, it said that it ''considered that the mild implication of something inappropriate between the dog and the man is overridden by the humour of the advertisement and the fact that viewers are aware of what the dog has done.''
It dismissed the complaint, saying the ad ''did treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience'' and was not in breach of advertising codes.