st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
The ad for Bayer Schering Pharma's Levonelle One Step morning-after pill will be broadcast after the 9pm watershed across a range of channels including ITV, Channel 4 and Sky.
The move comes just weeks after the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice released proposals to allow pregnancy advisory services to advertise on the TV and radio for the first time and for condoms to be advertised on all channels at any time.
The ad for Levonelle One Step shows a woman waking up next to her partner and then taking a trip to the pharmacy to ask for the pill, which is available without a prescription.
It aims to highlight that the pill is effective for up to 72 hours after contraception has failed, although it is more effective the sooner it is taken.
A spokeswoman for Bayer said: "We believe TV advertising plays an important role in informing women about Levonelle One Step and how it can be obtained."
A spokeswoman for ProLife Alliance, said: "We are absolutely outraged that without even waiting for the outcome of the Advertising Standards Code Review, Levonelle One Step will be promoted on evening TV, no doubt without even so much as a health warning, let alone an honest description of how the pill in question actually works.
"Young girls will be particularly susceptible to this advertising campaign, and it is foolish to imagine they do not watch TV after the 9.00 watershed."
Levonelle has previously been promoted through posters and magazine ads. A 2004 London Underground poster campaign, featuring the strapline "Immaculate Contraception" was withdrawn following complaints from Catholic groups.
Comments
CF - 23/04/2009
"Young girls will be particularly susceptible to this advertising campaign"...er, isn't that the very point of this ad?
Is it down to the recession? New products now being permitted to advertise because the medium is losing money hand over foot...
Maybe Levonelle marketers will regret it in the morning...
Many of the 'outraged' will see this as promoting promiscuity - with the highest teen-pregnancy rates in Europe, that boat has sailed.
Condoms should be advertised on TV, anytime, any channel - who is going to be offended and why? Look how well the 'anti-contraception' ideal has worked in African nations where 20%+ of populations have HIV or AIDS.
Kids should be taught sex education at an earlier age and \(young women especially) should be made aware of their options.
This is about freedom of choice.
Teen pregnancies are not always unwanted and do not always ruin lives - I'm in my mid thirties and know girls \(women now) that I went to school with who have kids in their teens and have loved bringing up their children - but, this isn't what all young women want.
Why should they not be made aware of products that can help them and that do not come with an embarrassing, upsetting or patronising visit to the GP or clinic.
Levonelle should be advertised on TV and elsewhere \(relevant press and online options) - it is the right of the individual to choose and those who are morally outraged should keep it to themselves or share it with their like-minded pals rather than spouting at already confused/upset young women.
The ASA has got it right this time – good work!
Phew – cathartic.
CF - 24/04/2009
nice one, toothless one
Dentally challenged but mentally sharp - great little entry, great line up of arguments I'd generally agree with. Just one bone of contention ... do you REALLY think that someone who is morally outraged should keep it to themselves? So shut up everyone over Gaza or Dafur or Sri Lanka or Tibet or slavery, keep to youself worries about about exploitation or manipulation of women and pressures on them sexually - which are of course sometimes going to be worse - a worrying sadly inevitable by-product of what could be a brilliant product.
hell no - those who are morally outraged by something that is genuinely worthy of their pith and anger should step up and shout - more power to them.
I take offence at those minorities who would remove freedom of choice for individuals because such freedoms offend their moral sensibilities. If you are going to get all rowdy, throw eggs at politicians, burn banks, superglue yourself to a statue, etc, do it in the right cause and I'll stand next to you to the last.
But casting young women assunder because they want to correct a mistake that has the potential (again - not always the case) to ruin the rest of their life - or denying them access to information about the solution to a problem because it offends small groups of right wing religious zealouts - that sh*t's just wrong and fair play to the ASA for not allowing it to happen.
Comments
CF - 23/04/2009
"Young girls will be particularly susceptible to this advertising campaign"...er, isn't that the very point of this ad?
John Gallen - 23/04/2009
Is it down to the recession? New products now being permitted to advertise because the medium is losing money hand over foot...
John Bottom - 23/04/2009
Maybe Levonelle marketers will regret it in the morning...
gotnoteef - 23/04/2009
Many of the 'outraged' will see this as promoting promiscuity - with the highest teen-pregnancy rates in Europe, that boat has sailed. Condoms should be advertised on TV, anytime, any channel - who is going to be offended and why? Look how well the 'anti-contraception' ideal has worked in African nations where 20%+ of populations have HIV or AIDS. Kids should be taught sex education at an earlier age and \(young women especially) should be made aware of their options. This is about freedom of choice. Teen pregnancies are not always unwanted and do not always ruin lives - I'm in my mid thirties and know girls \(women now) that I went to school with who have kids in their teens and have loved bringing up their children - but, this isn't what all young women want. Why should they not be made aware of products that can help them and that do not come with an embarrassing, upsetting or patronising visit to the GP or clinic. Levonelle should be advertised on TV and elsewhere \(relevant press and online options) - it is the right of the individual to choose and those who are morally outraged should keep it to themselves or share it with their like-minded pals rather than spouting at already confused/upset young women. The ASA has got it right this time – good work! Phew – cathartic.
CF - 24/04/2009
nice one, toothless one
Andrew Parkinson - 27/04/2009
Dentally challenged but mentally sharp - great little entry, great line up of arguments I'd generally agree with. Just one bone of contention ... do you REALLY think that someone who is morally outraged should keep it to themselves? So shut up everyone over Gaza or Dafur or Sri Lanka or Tibet or slavery, keep to youself worries about about exploitation or manipulation of women and pressures on them sexually - which are of course sometimes going to be worse - a worrying sadly inevitable by-product of what could be a brilliant product.
gotnoteef - 28/04/2009
hell no - those who are morally outraged by something that is genuinely worthy of their pith and anger should step up and shout - more power to them.
I take offence at those minorities who would remove freedom of choice for individuals because such freedoms offend their moral sensibilities. If you are going to get all rowdy, throw eggs at politicians, burn banks, superglue yourself to a statue, etc, do it in the right cause and I'll stand next to you to the last.
But casting young women assunder because they want to correct a mistake that has the potential (again - not always the case) to ruin the rest of their life - or denying them access to information about the solution to a problem because it offends small groups of right wing religious zealouts - that sh*t's just wrong and fair play to the ASA for not allowing it to happen.