Africa-Press – South-Africa. Only one advertising company took up the offer when the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) proposed anti-discrimination training after the Clicks TRESemmé advert furore in 2020.
The ARB is the body that regulates advertising content.
“It is… distressing to note that after the Clicks advert… we immediately offered training. Only one agency took us up on the offer,” ARB chief executive Gail Schimmel told the South African Human Rights Commission’s inquiry into racial discrimination and discrimination in advertising on Tuesday.
“My opinion is that, as so often with racism, we all recognise there is a problem with racism, but we don’t think we are the problem. We believe the training and the code would empower people, and we would like to partner with the commission and offer the training,” Schimmel added.
Clicks hair ad ‘profoundly offensive and racist’, says Cabinet
She said another agency had asked for the training later.
Schimmel asked the commission to work with the ARB to organise training for the sector.
The advert – in which a black woman’s hair was described as “dry and damaged”, “frizzy and dull” – sparked protests at Clicks stores across the country. It also led to TRESemmé products being removed from the shelves.
Last week, the Equality Court in Cape Town ruled that the advertisement had not discriminate against black women.
Schimmel said the TRESemmé advert was ignorant and tone-deaf.
EFF, Clicks bury the hatchet, Unilever to pull all TRESemmé products for 10 days
She said some of the issues that led to offensive advertisements being produced was agencies employing junior people of colour who were scared to speak up, as well as insufficient staff transformation.
She said most discriminatory adverts in the country were more subtle and therefore didn’t spark complaints.
She added:
The ARB, Schimmel said, was a voluntary body and had no membership fees. It was voluntarily funded by companies.
Schimmel said the ARB had no jurisdiction over non-members but could inform broadcasters to stop running offensive advertisements.
In a recent case, Bliss Brands, a non-member of the ARB, was ordered to withdraw the packaging of its soap brand Securex after Colgate – a member of the ARB and a competing brand – complained that Bliss Brands was imitating the Protex packaging.
Bliss Brands challenged the constitutionality of the ARB ruling in Protex’s favour. It took the matter to the High Court and won the case.
The court ruled that the ARB exercising power over non-members was unconstitutional.
The ARB is appealing the decision at the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Schimmel said:
Asked what the consequences would be if the ARB lost the appeal, Schimmel said: “It means we will not be able to make decisions on non-members. Will our members remain members? How will we protect consumers? It will be a disaster for the consumer, and we hope the court sees that.”
She said agencies’ membership of the ARB was an ethical matter.
“The reality is membership of the ARB is the right thing to do. That is what ethical advertisers do. That is the real benefit of being a member of the ARB. It is the ethically right thing to do. We have rogue matters, and we are always trying to work on that,” she added.
On Monday, researcher Petronell Kruger said the ARB should be legally recognised to improve the advertising landscape, and all marketing companies be forced to register with it.
“When we do recognise [the] ARB, it must have real sanctions power. Also, membership of the ARB must be compulsory. The government needs to step up to protect its people.”
Never miss a story. Choose from our range of newsletters to get the news you want delivered straight to your inbox.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
