Tell Rivers what you think of their new approach to advertising
We have received several emails from Collective Shout supporters about the latest Rivers Catalogue.
Comments we received include:
The girl’s face appears to be very young. I thought the catalogue was very inappropriate for the merchandise –cheap sandals, lots of chidrens’ wear.
With the tagline of ‘Get Excited’ with the image it is loaded with such sexual overtones that one could mistake your catelogue for a pornographic magazine.
It objectifies women. The photo on the front is clearly sexual in intention, and is not referenced in the inside catalogue, so it is only to attract attention. This is trading on women’s sexuality and I am complaining about the trend in Rivers’ advertising.
Curious, we looked at the list of determinations on the Advertising Standards Board’s website to see if there have been complaints about Rivers before.
From December 2010 (Link to PDF)
Image of a person pulling on a pair of jeans. We can only see from the upper thigh to the middle of the back. The person is not wearing a top, and we can see the top of their bottom. The words “GET EXCITED” are written in black along the line of their back.
From May 2010 (Link to PDF)
Photograph of a female taken from the front. She is bent over with her legs apart, and her arms stretched above her so that her body shape resembles an X. She is wearing knee high black boots and black shorts. You can’t see her face as she is looking at the floor and her hair is hanging down. The image is on the front cover of a Rivers Catalogue, entitled Red Hot.
From January 2010 (Link to PDF)
This print advertisement a catalogue cover for Rivers Australia summer sizzle 12 day sale shows a woman with long blonde hair sitting on a white box with her back to the camera. She is wearing a blue, white and red striped shirt. It is pulled down on her left shoulder revealing a red bra strap. No underpants are visible and her bottom is slightly exposed. Details about the sale are on both sides of the image.
Of course, as we have come to expect from the Advertising Standards Board, complaints about all of the above were dismissed. We can only assume that complaints about this most recent advertisement will be dismissed also.
However, it is still very important to register your complaint about Rivers advertising with the Advertising Standards Board. We need to make it clear that the objectification of women is something the community cares about, regardless of the ASB’s determination on the matter.
We also need to let Rivers know what we think of their new approach to advertising. Previously they had adopted what could be seen as a radical approach to advertising. Instead of using traditional models, Rivers had used regular people:
It is amazing how things that come out of necessity get adopted. We couldn’t afford models at Rivers. So I roped anyone in, including staff, my brother-in-law even my children. When we did the first catalogue we got heaps of letters and phone calls from people in advertising telling us how unprofessional we were. But we got 10 times more from customers telling us they were fantastic and how great it was to see real people modelling. – Phillip Goodman, owner of Rivers quoted in Smart Company
Exchanging regular people as models and customer praise with semi-naked objectified women is a bad idea.
Take Action!
Contact the Advertising Standards Board here, via their online complaints form.
Contact Rivers
email: q@rivaus.com.au
Owner of Rivers
Phillip Goodman P.O Box 7034 Hawthorn North
You might like to make the following points in your email to Rivers:
- You are not ‘excited’ by Rivers new approach to advertising, which objectifies women
- The objectification of women has a negative impact on the health and well being of women and girls
- You will not be shopping at Rivers until they stop objectifying women in their advertising.
As always, let us know what you write and if you get a response, via the comments below.
8 Comments
The advertising standards bureau are a complete waste of time. They usually side with the advertisers (what a surprise) rather than those complaining. This is due to the fact that they are self regulating… this is what they said
“The self-regulation system provides the community a no-cost, accessible, transparent and responsive system with robust decision making. We are confident that the inquiries will find the current system to be an effective and well-administered system and we encourage anyone with an interest in the self regulation system to find out more about the various reviews and consider making a submission.”
It’s time to put the heat on the ASB and tell them to give greater power to those who complain otherwise the Government should step in.
Agree with your concerns John. They rarely recognise objectification of women as a problem and certainly dismiss more complaints than they uphold. The code is interpreted in a way that will protect the advertisers. There are certainly bigger issues with the ASB that need addressing. Self regulation is not working.
The reason we ask people to write to them anyway is because we think it is important that people’s complaints are at least on record. If their decisions will not reflect community concern, then at least their annual reports and statistics will.
On a related issue John, be sure to write a submission to the Inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising, due date February 18. Details can be found here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/spla/outdoor%20advertising/index.htm
I used to look forward to the Rivers catalogues with their in-house models (bet they didn’t get a staff member to pose for this one) & quirky stories. Seriously shoddy work that will NOT excite the many Mums who buy their family’s clothing at the stores.
Complaint dismissed & here are excerpts from ASB response:
The Board noted that whilst some members of the community may find this image to be inappropriate, in the Board’s view the image is mild and relatively discrete. The Board considered that the reference to excitement did bring a degree of sexual suggestion to the image but was still relatively mild.
The Board considered that the advertisement was not overtly sexualised. The Board noted that the advertisement is featured on a clothes catalogue and is able to be seen by children, but considered that overall the advertisement is not sexually explicit, graphic or inappropriate.
The Board reviewed the advertisement and noted the advertiser’s response that it was not their intention to offend anyone and that they do not believe the image is pornographic in nature.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complainant/s regarding this advertisement include the following:
Rivers (Australia) had no intent to offend anyone with the cover of our catalogue #1-2011.
However, we have no control over the way people perceive images. There is nothing in the image that allows the viewer to accurately determine the model’s age – any assumptions made that she very young are purely speculation.
We do not believe the image is pornographic in nature, nor do we believe it more suited to the cover of a men’s magazine. Again, any suggestion that she is not clothed underneath her hair are purely assumptions made by the viewer.
It is worth noting that this was a single use catalogue which is no longer in circulation (save for any copies that have been kept by individuals).
The response from Rivers makes my jaw drop.
“Again, any suggestion that she is not clothed underneath her hair are purely assumptions made by the viewer.” This is almost Orwellian in its attempt to mess with our minds, to disbelieve what is as clear as day.
when I saw this i was really surprised that Rivers had taken this route. I wrote to them via their feedback line and presented my concerns.
I was really please to receive a response thanking me for taking the time to lodge my concerns. The staff member advised me that the concerns raised were to be sent to the Marketing team and Executive team.
Why dont yoi get a life this isnt porn and not showing any bits go find something better to do sex sell dont like it dont look at it and toughen up
Has anyone else had a problem with being badly treated my Rivers store management. I have an issue regarding being told by a shop assistant that money would be refunded to my credidt cards, as long as goods were returned with a receipt, Then when they were returned I was told that the shop assistant should not have told me that as the goods were clearance items, I said I still wanted them to honour the agreement the assitant had made with me, they said we are human and make mistakes. Then when I took my complaint to a higher level I was told that I was lying and that the assistant had not said I could have a refund, I pointed out that the asssitant had comfirmed she had said I could have a refund to my credit card, in front of her manager, and the manager had later confirmed this in front of my husband and one other store assistant. Basiclly they called me dishonest and I find that very objectionible. I would like to hear from any one else with issues so we can go to the consumers support as a group.
One Trackback
[...] deadly deals.’ We have previously written about Rivers’ objectification of women here. It seems River’s have decided that even ‘dead’ women are to be objectified and [...]