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.
- Thanks to Paul Ryan, Papa Roach's teen-angst smash "Last Resort" has become the internet's unofficial anthem for the owned 😬🎤
- Markets are saying "Vive la France" after pro-EU centrist Emmanuel Macron gained the most votes in the 1st round of the French election.
- A Pro-Trump site is showing that with a big Facebook page and catchy headlines, you can have almost zero content and still make money.
- Tim Hortons, Canada's biggest coffee chain, is opening its first UK store next month ahead of a rollout across the country 🍩