'Naughty' golf shirts spark advertising body complaint - but watchdog finds no breach

Cartoon-based sexually suggestive golf-themed shirts, advertised online and depicting tongue-in-cheek images of stick figures in sexual positions and, in some cases, male genitalia, recently came under the spotlight of the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB).

This followed a complaint by a member of the public to the ARB regarding Swing Daddy’s (the advertiser) humorous golf shirt designs, which include a few “naughty” designs that appear on its website.

The complainant submitted that some of the items/accessories and clothing have penises, naked breasts, and explicit sexual innuendos printed on them, which the complainant deemed irresponsible. The complainant argued that should one wish to wear or advertise this, it should not be public and argued that adult content should be better managed.

Snyman Leaker Williams Attorneys, on behalf of the advertiser, submitted that its business is distinguished by the humorous use of puns and play on golfing superstitions. They pointed out that there are similar businesses across the world that sell such items.

The items to which the complainant refers appear exclusively under its “Party Polo” section, which requires deliberate action on the part of a browser to locate online. These items are not advertised by paid advertisement channels to the general public, the lawyers said. They argued that the imagery is neither explicit nor graphic and features cartoon-style content that is clearly intended to be humorous.

Many of its items have been selling extremely well since it first started trading in 2020, which indicates public approval and suggests that the typical customer understands the intention and obvious humour.

According to the lawyers, not a single complaint has been received from any golf course about its clothing and golfing paraphernalia. The advertiser stated that the complainant’s objection to what people wear in public is her personal opinion. It added that it is unreasonable to expect people to stop wearing specific clothing simply because one person does not like it.

The ARB, meanwhile, pointed out that it has no jurisdiction over actual products. Part of the complainant's concern relates to the actual shirts and other items worn by people who bought them. This is not something that the ARB can control.

Regarding the advertising content, the watchdog organisation acknowledged that the examples provided by the complainant rely on innuendo and contain cartoon imagery of an explicit nature. However, the ARB’s Directorate also agreed that these images are not graphic and are stylised in a manner that lends itself to humour rather than pornography or adult content, as the complainant phrased it.

The ARB also noted that these items are not typically advertised to mass audiences or the general public but appear only on the company website and social media pages, where people have to actively choose to follow them or view the content. In addition, it noted that these items appear to constitute a fraction of the items typically seen on the advertiser’s social media. Other examples include cartoon images of characters or personalities such as Homer Simpson or Donald Trump, along with quips about golf as a sport.

The ARB’s Directorate said it is therefore satisfied that the average person visiting the media content is likely a golf enthusiast and subscribes to the same type of humour. Given this, and given that the images are not graphic, do not feature any real genitalia or naked people, but rather comical cartoon depictions.

The Directorate said it is not convinced that the advertising is likely to cause serious offence in a manner that its Code seeks to prevent. It subsequently found no wrongdoing on the part of the advertiser.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za