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.
- The 36 victims in the Oakland warehouse fire were trapped with "no way out" in America's deadliest blaze in over a decade.
- Donald Trump has picked former WWE CEO Linda McMahon to lead the Small Business Administration.
- Tennessee authorities have charged two minors with starting the massive wildfires that killed 14 people last month.
- This dad had the most adorable freak out to his family when he met his first alpaca 😂