The Advertising Standards Authority said it would ban gender stereotypes – so why are we seeing ads like these?

The ASA describes itself as the independent regulator of commercials across all media – but TV is the least of its problems. Where are the blanket bans for diet pills that influencers tout on social media?

Two adverts promoting a Volkswagen car and Philadelphia soft cheese have been barred for breaking new rules on gender stereotypes (Getty/Vetta)

At best it’s boring and lazy. At worst, it’s representative of something far more concerning: that some in TV advertising still struggle with the revolutionary idea that women work and men can be primary caregivers.

Earlier this week, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld complaints concerning gender stereotyping in two commercials, from Mondelez and Volkswagen respectively.

In the Mondelez ad for Philadelphia cream cheese, two men were shown taking care of their children in a restaurant serving food via conveyor belt. Distracted and without thinking, they plonk their respective children down in order to indulge. Next thing you know, off the little tots vanish while their hilariously occupied fathers address their ravenous appetites with reckless abandon... before one notices his child circumnavigating the restaurant without him, that is.

“Let’s not tell mum,” they laughingly agree when reunited with their offspring; oh, the japes!

In the case of the Volkswagen ad, a couple were shown going to sleep in a tent atop a sheer cliff face following an epic adventure, but then two men appeared as astronauts and another as a para-athlete, while a woman was shown sat on a bench next to a pram. Yawn.

The idea that activists – in this case, feminists – need to “lighten up” and “get a sense of humour” has long been trotted out when it comes to these arguments. There’s an expectation to dilute the impact and importance of the desire for change by those who can’t be bothered to understand that letting these small issues pile up will eventually become an insurmountable challenge. But just because you disagree with something intended to be funny, doesn’t mean you are devoid of humour.

Of course, there needs to be a sensible application of the rules, and too much heavy-handed deployment of those rules could be seen to dilute the impact of the governing body. But really, why are we still seeing these ads? It’s just dull.

It feels as though this debate could have taken place 10 or 15 years ago. Indeed, why did the ASA implement the rules regarding gender stereotyping in the first place, if the advertising industry hadn’t shown itself incapable of not constantly reinforcing those stereotypes?

If you can see it, you can be it – these small indicators throughout childhood can and do have an impact. There were two parents in the Philadelphia ad and two astronauts in the VW ad, why couldn’t one of each have been female?

And given that so many fathers still refer to taking care of their children sans partner as “babysitting” (clue: if you’re responsible for said child(ren)’s conception, it ain’t babysitting – it’s known as parenting), there is still a way to go on universal acceptance of the idea that a father’s role in the family isn’t solely restricted to main breadwinner and occasional weekend caregiver.

The Philadelphia ad doesn’t just reinforce the notion that this could only happen “on dad’s watch” but also that it’s OK that this happened on dad’s watch. The same level of understanding and “ah, sure it’s grand” probably wouldn’t be afforded to a woman in that situation. Instead of being laughed off as a humorous oversight, her abilities as a mother would be questioned and child protective services would be called.

Therein lies the rub. This is exactly why the gender rules were introduced. So why completely ignore them?

Over and above all of these arguments about the absence of people’s sense of humour and ridding ourselves of gender stereotyping, however, is the question: who even watches ads on television anymore?

Despite the fact that we are in a “golden age of television”, the advent of recording and pausing live television, as well as on-demand services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, means many of us simply do not see ads while watching TV shows at all. But it’s a different story with social media platforms. Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and others serve ads that cannot be avoided – in many instances to demographics much younger than those who watch “regular, scheduled television”.

The ASA describes itself as the independent regulator of advertising across all media – so where are the blanket bans for diet pills and shakes that influencers such Kim and Khloe Kardashian regularly tout on Instagram to their millions of followers? The authority obviously sets out to govern with the best of intentions, but television advertising no longer feels as though it’s the biggest challenge facing the regulator.

Smartphones and social media mean more targeted advertising than ever before. Where previous generations of families congregated around the one television set and saw the same set of programmes and the ads therein, today’s parents have no idea what kind of ads their children are seeing when logged into their social media profiles.

The ASA’s opportunity now is in amplifying and increasing its work on social media advertising, to stop people getting away with practices that would simply never be allowed in traditional forms of media. As opposed to the uproar these bans have caused, few could argue against the idea of protecting vulnerable or young people from cynical online advertisers.