Case Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
Case Number
Advertiser
Product
Type of Advertisement / media
Date of Determination
DETERMINATION
0370/12
Dick Smith Electronics
Retail
Internet
12/09/2012
Dismissed
ISSUES RAISED
2.4 - Sex/sexuality/nudity S/S/N - general
2.5 - Language inappropriate language
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
Dick Smith catalogue, available online, entitled "Dick's Big Package" contains images of the
electronics available to buy at Dick Smiths. At the top of each page is a question followed by
the reply, "Dick Does". The questions include, "Who has a big package with your name on
it?" "Who dominates in the hardware department?" and "Who gives you more bangs for your
bucks?" The catalogue is dated as on sale from the 14 to the 27 August 2012.
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included
the following:
Highly sexualised and suggestive slogans on the front cover and top of each page of the
catalogue e.g. „Who has a big package with your name on it?‟ „Who dominates in the
hardware department?‟ „Who lets you grab the big package?‟ „Who gives you more bangs for
your buck?‟ „Who gives you more action at home?‟ etc. The placement of such questions
beside the common response on each page „Dick does‟ sounds more like an aggressive
pornographic reel than a catalogue for electronics equipment. This is not appropriate
material for general households - has anyone considered that children read such catalogues
online and at home too? I also find it offensive for the sake of the Dick Smith sales staff who
must work in a culture of such sexual and brutal innuendo particularly the female staff. And
as for the male staff - did any customers visit Dick's stores on Saturday and ask staff if they
could 'grab their big packages'? Not ok.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this
advertisement include the following:
Substantive Response to Complaint The advertisement is a catalogue for consumer electrical
products such as computers, telephones and audio-visual equipment and features deals on
package offers for customers – for example, buy a Toshiba laptop and get Microsoft Office
2010, a mouse and a portable hard drive for $50 extra. The catalogue is titled “Dick‟s Big
Package” and each page features a question with the answer “Dick Does” – e.g.: Who has a
big package with your name on it? Dick does. The complaints allege that the catalogue
contains “highly sexualised and suggestive slogans”, “covertly sexual messages” and
“sexual language”. The complaints therefore raise issues under clauses 2.4 and 2.5 of the
AANA Code of Ethics. Dick Smith does not agree that the catalogue breaches the AANA Code
of Ethics. The “Big Package” campaign is focused on showcasing package deals for our
customers. It is delivered in a cheeky way which matches Dick Smith‟s overall brand tone
and style. Dick Smith acknowledges that the catalogue contains some mild double entendres,
however these are appropriate for the target audience of the catalogue and the nature of the
products being offered. The complaints raise some concerns about the possible impact of the
catalogue on children. The target audience for the catalogue is adults aged 25 years and over
and the products featured in the catalogue are expensive electronic items that children would
not be able to afford. Otherwise themes and language used in the catalogue are not directed
at children. The catalogue does not use any swear words and so does not contain any
language that could be interpreted as “strong” or “obscene”. The catalogue does not
contain any sexual imagery, nor does it make any express sexual references. While the
advertisement includes a number of plays on the double meanings of words such as “package”
“hardware” and the name “Dick”, these are not gratuitous given that the catalogue is
advertising package deals on electronic hardware items sold by Dick Smith. Further, to
understand a double entendre such as those used in the catalogue requires advanced
language skills, and it is unlikely that a child would understand the double meaning of the
catalogue statements. For the reasons stated above the complaint should be dismissed in its
entirety. Dick Smith notes that it is no longer distributing the catalogue.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches
section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the complainant‟s concern that the advertisement features highly sexualised
and suggestive slogans which are not appropriate for a broad audience including children.
The Board viewed the advertisements and noted the advertiser‟s response.
The Board considered whether the advertisements were in breach of Section 2.4 of the Code.
Section 2.4 of the Code states: “Advertising or Marketing Communications shall treat sex,
sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience”.
The Board noted the advertisement is a brochure for Dick Smith‟s Big Package promotion
and is available to view on their website. The Board noted the advertisement contains images
of the electronic equipment available to purchase as part of the „big package‟ campaign and
that the headlines of each page include the questions, “Who has a big package with your
name on it? Dick does!” and “Who gives you more bangs for your bucks? Dick does!”
The Board noted that the theme of the advertisement is in line with the well-known TV game
show of the late 1970s when Graham Kennedy and Ugly Dave Gray would relate stories
about “Dick” and the words “Dick does” were relevant to that era of Australian television.
The Board noted the complainant‟s concerns that the wording of the advertisement is highly
sexualised and considered that as the advertiser‟s name is Dick it is reasonable to expect this
word to appear in advertising material. The Board noted that the phrases used do not contain
any overt or highly sexualised material although they could be interpreted to have sexual
innuendo. The Board considered that this sexual innuendo is mild and unlikely to be
understood by children. The Board noted that the content of the advertisement is aimed at
adults buying electronic equipment and considered that the advertisement would not be of
appeal to children and that even if children were to see the advertisement it did not contain
any material which would be considered inappropriate by most reasonable members of the
community.
On this basis the Board determined that the advertisement did depict sex, sexuality and nudity
with sensitivity to the relevant audience and that it did not breach section 2.4 of the Code.
The Board then considered whether the advertisement was in breach of Section 2.5 of the
Code. Section 2.5 of the Code states: “Advertising or Marketing Communications shall only
use language which is appropriate in the circumstances and strong or obscene language shall
be avoided”.
The Board noted that the word „Dick‟ is not of itself a word which would be considered
strong or obscene and that it is being used in the advertisement in the context of the
advertiser‟s name. The Board noted the mild sexual innuendo of the wording in the
advertisement and considered that the language used was not inappropriate and not strong or
obscene.
The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.5 of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board
dismissed the complaint.