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.
- Donald Trump's supporters think his comments about Miss Universe are no big deal.
- This is no illusion: Lady Gaga confirmed she's headlining the Super Bowl halftime show in February 🏈🎉
- One person died and more than 100 others were injured after a commuter train crashed into a New Jersey Transit station in Hoboken.
- Asos workers at the heart of its global retail empire say they're being treated like machines to deliver fast fashion.