Viewers have complained that the ad, part of a £6m campaign to celebrate the airline's 25th anniversary, is sexist and insulting to women.
Set in 1984, the ad shows a Virgin Atlantic crew strutting through a drab airport toward the carrier's first ever flight. The ad features a number of 80s references, including record store Our Price and an oversized early mobile phone. The soundtrack for the ad, which uses the endline ‘Still red hot', is Frankie Goes To Hollywood hit Relax.
Paul Charles, director of communications at Virgin Atlantic, said: 'The ASA has rightly dismissed these complaints, which probably come from competitors jealous of our fantastic cabin and flight crew. Our advert has been brilliantly received worldwide and reinforces why so many people want to work for Virgin Atantic.'
The campaign, created incumbent agency RKCR/Y&R, launched last month.
Comments
In what way is this insulting?? I really don't understand how some people's brains work. Are we not allowed to portray women \(or pilots) as sexy, glamourous or being able to turn heads any more?? I think the 29 people who complained must be very insecure about how they look. Viva the Glam.
Glad the ASA made the right call: this ad is so tongue-in-cheek, so 'virgin' - difficult to see why anyone would take it too seriously
I couldn't agree more with you, Caroline and James. I even heard someone denounce it as sexist without even having seen the ad. Sigh.
It is possible for an ad to be both tongue-in-cheek and sexist -- the two are not mutually exclusive! The ASA says that it "presented exaggerated stereotypical views of the early 1980s and played upon perceived attitudes of that time in a humorous way." By "played upon", the ASA really means "glorified with plausible deniability". The women in the ad are objectified as solely sexual figures. I am an attractive and confident woman myself, and I am not jealous of the women, but sad that they are valued ONLY for their looks, rather than their abilities. Where will these same flight attendants be in 25 years, when they will be much more skilled but less conventionally attractive?
Worse, the only man on Virgin's 'red hot' team is the captain, who is presented in an inherent position of power over the women, rather than as an object of desire himself.
In the end, although objectification is only to be expected in advertising, it is the inequality that rankles. Throw in some nice-looking air host lads with their assets on display and we'll all be happy.
the 'nice-looking air host lads' are there. take a closer look.
I think you'll find you can make out absolutely none of their assets whatsoever. Which is my point.
Why were you looking for their assets? Were you objectifying them?
I was trying to! Unfortunately the unequal \(and therefore sexist) ad stuck all these women in miniskirts and three-inch heels in front of them.
so sexism is fine as long as men are involved too? mmmm. i spy a flaw in your argument.
It is just a bit of fun. If anything this is the reaction Dicky wanted. Show me the money.
And if this is sexist then we should ban those Diet Coke Break ads where they portray working class males as sex objects being constantly hounded by a pack of horny women.
And i know a sentance should not start with and.
.gif)
Comments
Caroline Barker - 09/02/2009
In what way is this insulting?? I really don't understand how some people's brains work. Are we not allowed to portray women \(or pilots) as sexy, glamourous or being able to turn heads any more?? I think the 29 people who complained must be very insecure about how they look. Viva the Glam.
James Shaw - 10/02/2009
Glad the ASA made the right call: this ad is so tongue-in-cheek, so 'virgin' - difficult to see why anyone would take it too seriously
gravemaurice - 10/02/2009
I couldn't agree more with you, Caroline and James. I even heard someone denounce it as sexist without even having seen the ad. Sigh.
Emma Goldman - 10/02/2009
It is possible for an ad to be both tongue-in-cheek and sexist -- the two are not mutually exclusive! The ASA says that it "presented exaggerated stereotypical views of the early 1980s and played upon perceived attitudes of that time in a humorous way." By "played upon", the ASA really means "glorified with plausible deniability". The women in the ad are objectified as solely sexual figures. I am an attractive and confident woman myself, and I am not jealous of the women, but sad that they are valued ONLY for their looks, rather than their abilities. Where will these same flight attendants be in 25 years, when they will be much more skilled but less conventionally attractive? Worse, the only man on Virgin's 'red hot' team is the captain, who is presented in an inherent position of power over the women, rather than as an object of desire himself. In the end, although objectification is only to be expected in advertising, it is the inequality that rankles. Throw in some nice-looking air host lads with their assets on display and we'll all be happy.
gravemaurice - 11/02/2009
the 'nice-looking air host lads' are there. take a closer look.
Emma Goldman - 11/02/2009
I think you'll find you can make out absolutely none of their assets whatsoever. Which is my point.
gravemaurice - 11/02/2009
Why were you looking for their assets? Were you objectifying them?
Emma Goldman - 11/02/2009
I was trying to! Unfortunately the unequal \(and therefore sexist) ad stuck all these women in miniskirts and three-inch heels in front of them.
gravemaurice - 11/02/2009
so sexism is fine as long as men are involved too? mmmm. i spy a flaw in your argument.
David Bowie - 17/02/2009
It is just a bit of fun. If anything this is the reaction Dicky wanted. Show me the money.
David Bowie - 17/02/2009
And if this is sexist then we should ban those Diet Coke Break ads where they portray working class males as sex objects being constantly hounded by a pack of horny women.
David Bowie - 17/02/2009
And i know a sentance should not start with and.