KEY POINTS:
A complaint about a billboard advertisement showing the hands of two women edging down a male's pants has been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.
The advertisement was for Mega V, a performance supplement for men, and contained the heading: "Need Stamina?".
Complainant C. Sewell saw the billboard in Grey Lynn in Auckland while she was taking her children to school.
"I am not even vaguely prudish but I find this ad offensive and completely rude and unnecessary. You can see body hair - including what looks like pubic hair - in the shot ... my 9-year-old daughter asked why the man had a woman's hand in his pants ... is this the only way they can sell their drugs?" she complained.
About two-thirds of the billboard, which has since been removed, showed the hip and groin area of a male in low-slung, black shorts.
Part of a bra-clad female torso could be seen with her hand edging down below the top of the male's pants.
The hand of a different woman could be seen carrying out a similar activity on the other side.
The Complaints Board said the advertisement, which was the subject of several similar complaints, was not suitable or appropriate for publication on a billboard.
It ruled the advertisement had not been prepared and shown with a due sense of social responsibility and was therefore in breach of Basic Principal 4 of the Code of Ethics.
The board noted that the advertiser - Altitude Advertising - took the billboard down in a self-regulatory manner after it was complained about.
* A job advertisement for a breakfast chef stating a negotiable hourly rate of $20-$23 has been ruled misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Complainant D. Carr applied for the job, which was advertised on a website, at Avanti Restaurant in Queenstown and completed a trial period.
He said that when it came time to discuss remuneration, he was informed the rate was $20 per hour, with a review in three months.
"I feel misled by the ad as I would not have applied for the position and done an unpaid trial ... if I had known the rate was '$20 non-neg' and not '$20-$23 neg' as advertised."
The Complaints Board noted the explanation from the advertiser that the website format had required a minimum and maximum hourly rate to be stated.
However, it said the advertisement implied the employee had the right to negotiate their starting salary.
