The post is no longer on the magazine’s Facebook page.
Just a few of the lovely comments on the post.
The October Facebook post was just censored this week by Australia’s ad watchdog, the Advertising Standards Bureau.
The complaint read, in part:
“The image, disturbing nature of having a disembodied woman and the offensive, clearly sexist and even abusive nature of some responses on a page being used to advertise this product should not be allowed. Both the pictures, the questions that are posed and the responses are regularly demeaning and unacceptable to women. Women are objectified and sexualised.”
Zoo publisher ACP argues, however, that the post is editorial material, not advertising. They added that “(men’s) choice of Zoo magazine is for a purpose — to engage with content that doesn’t require too much thought.”
Looking at their Facebook page, they’ve got that right.
But is a brand’s Facebook page’s content advertising or editorial?
It’s a sticky wicket that’s going to see lots of courtroom action in the coming years.
- It's on: Hillary Clinton has officially accepted the Democratic party's presidential nomination with some fiery words for Donald Trump 🇺🇸
- Amazon's in its Prime. The company's profit rose 831% this quarter thanks to its growing cloud computing business ☁️💸
- #TBT: Old-school MTV is returning Aug. 1 with shows like "Daria," "Beavis & Butt-Head," "Cribs," and "Punk'd" 📺 🙌