The general population is becoming more aware and perceptive of their exposure to advertising and are likely to question its motives. A common theme among these opinions is the consideration of changing societal norms and a preference to perceive community standards reflected in the advertising.
Ad Standards is the organisational body working alongside AANA that creates codes of conduct for advertisers to self-regulate their marketing material. Here are the salient points from their latest qualitative research.
Australians are exposed to advertising across multiple physical and digital platforms.
75% of Australians believe advertising should reflect community standards on topics, including the use of language and violence.
Gambling and misleading or deceptive advertising are the most concerning types of advertising.
Potentially offensive content being presented in humorous or clever advertising is more likely to be overlooked and accepted.
66% of Australians were most likely to discuss an offensive commercial with friends and family, rather than lodge a formal complaint.
Websites
Social Media
Free-to-air television
Radio
Subscription services
Gambling advertising
Misleading or deceptive advertising
Use of sexual appeal or nudity
Exploitative or scary content
Advertising to children
Only 7% of respondents did not express concern about the advertising they were exposed to.
In 2023, the federal Murphy Inquiry published its findings on harm caused by online gambling and included a slew of recommendations, including banning gambling advertising. In light of this report, and calls by the Grattan Institute that “gambling reform is a safe bet”, no major changes have been made to gambling advertising yet.
There is general distrust of advertising, with 38% of respondents expressing doubt compared to the 26% that held trust. People aged 25 – 49 and of CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) background were generally more trusting of advertising, while people aged 50+ and of non-CALD background had lower trust.
The majority of respondents – 75% – agreed that advertising should be reflective of community standards on topics such as violence and alcohol. Females aged 50+ were the highest proportion of respondents to express sentiments about this. Comparatively, males aged 16 – 24 were less concerned about the advertising content they were exposed to.
While people are exposed to a wide range of language – especially varying degrees of profanity – in everyday life, most respondents believed that advertising should enforce higher standards. Many were aware that everybody has different tolerances for potentially offensive language, and that unregulated use in advertising could inadvertently normalise and desensitise audiences, particularly children. However, respondents were also cognizant of the fact that standards about language change over time and its usage should reflect current attitudes and views.
To this end, the report found that the public had drawn clear “lines” about the acceptability and offensiveness of certain words and phrases. The words “bugger”, “bloody” and “crap” were generally considered acceptable to most people; there was a longer list of unacceptable words.
The research found that people were able to decide whether language was acceptable or unacceptable, but there was nuance to determining that. Various considerations influenced the perception of language and helped define the aforementioned “lines” of acceptability:
Offensiveness: the most influential factor in the acceptance of language.
Tone: words can be acceptable or unacceptable depending on the way they’re conveyed, for example, in a light-hearted or aggressive tone.
Context: the situation in which language is used relative to personal experience can also influence the appropriateness of the words used.
Intention: if audiences perceive the use of strong language in advertising to be deliberate for shock value, they are more likely to perceive it as a lazy tactic.