It’s 2026 – why are brands still objectifying women to sell e-bikes, air-conditioners and more?

Despite significant strides in gender equality and heightened public awareness, the year 2026 continues to witness a disheartening prevalence of sexually objectifying advertisements across various industries. From Chinese electric two-wheelers to consumer electronics like televisions and air-conditioners, and even household cleaning products, brands persistently resort to reductive portrayals of women, sparking fierce backlash and igniting renewed debates about ethical marketing practices. This pervasive issue underscores a deeper societal challenge: how readily women’s bodies are still exploited as a cheap, attention-grabbing commodity, often at the expense of meaningful product communication and genuine brand building.

One of the most recent and prominent examples to ignite widespread condemnation involved Chinese electric scooter brand Luyuan. The controversial advertisement featured a young woman in suggestive attire, her stockinged legs draped provocatively over motorcycle handlebars. The campaign employed a series of low-angle shots focusing on her thighs and frames of her adjusting her skirt after dismounting the scooter. The visual narrative was undeniably designed to titillate, creating a clear association between the product and sexual allure, rather than its utility, design, or performance. This highly sexualized imagery, intended to sell a practical mode of transport, quickly went viral on Chinese social media platform Douyin. The ensuing backlash was immediate and visceral, characterized by a torrent of angry comments and calls for a boycott from netizens who decried the ad as blatant objectification. The public outcry was so intense and sustained that Luyuan was compelled to withdraw the advertisement and issue a formal apology for its offensive content, acknowledging that it had objectified women.

The concept of objectification, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, broadly refers to the act of treating or seeing a person as an object rather than as a fully autonomous individual. In the context of advertising, this often manifests as reducing women to their physical attributes, stripping them of their agency, and using their bodies as mere props to sell unrelated products. The Luyuan incident highlighted not only the persistence of such tactics but also the growing intolerance of consumers, particularly in markets like China, where public discourse on gender issues is becoming increasingly vocal and organized.

Just weeks prior to the Luyuan controversy, British hygiene brand Dettol faced a similar firestorm in China over a five-minute microdrama advertising campaign. The narrative centered on a male protagonist seeking a partner who was "clean" and "not tainted by others." While the advertisement ostensibly aimed for a plot twist – revealing the man himself to be the "toxic" element – the initial framing and prolonged emphasis on purity themes were widely perceived as reinforcing archaic and misogynistic stereotypes about women’s sexual histories and societal value. Chinese netizens swiftly condemned the ad on microblogging platform Weibo, accusing it of promoting a regressive and harmful narrative. Calls for a boycott mounted, forcing Dettol to pull the ad, issue an apology, and pledge a comprehensive review of its internal creative processes to prevent future missteps. These two high-profile incidents within a short span underscore a troubling trend: despite societal advancements and the digital ease of public accountability, some brands continue to gamble with problematic content.

Beyond these egregious examples, a subtler yet pervasive form of objectification has permeated social media strategies. Many brands now engage female content creators, often young influencers, who feature their products while wearing revealing clothing or striking suggestive poses. These videos, prevalent across platforms like TikTok, Douyin, and Instagram, employ a consistent playbook: leverage attractive women playing into conventional gender stereotypes as a primary "hook" to capture fleeting attention. The product itself often becomes secondary, a mere accessory to the visual spectacle. The question remains, in 2026, why are these dated and often offensive tactics still so prevalent?

The answer, many industry observers believe, lies partly in the dynamics of the "attention economy." In the hyper-competitive digital landscape, attention is the ultimate currency. Whether it translates directly into sales or simply contributes to brand visibility and engagement metrics, stopping the endless scroll is paramount. The prevailing, albeit flawed, industry assumption is that a woman’s body, particularly when sexualized, achieves this objective much faster and more reliably than a detailed exposition of product features or innovative storytelling.

However, does using sex appeal genuinely translate into increased product sales? The consensus among advertising veterans with decades of experience suggests otherwise. Daniel Ko, a seasoned advertising creative with over 20 years in the industry, having worked on everything from FMCG brands and government campaigns to alcohol ads, including the once-notorious Lynx body spray campaigns built on overt sex appeal, remains skeptical. "I don’t believe there is real data on whether sexualized imagery sells better," Ko stated unequivocally. He attributes the industry’s continued reliance on such tactics to a pervasive fixation on performance metrics – clicks, views, and reactions – which are often mistakenly equated with actual effectiveness or sales conversion. "They don’t always convert into product sales," he cautioned, highlighting the critical distinction between engagement and genuine consumer intent.

Loo Yong Ping, Executive Creative Director at the renowned ad agency TBWA, echoes this sentiment. "I don’t know of any actual data behind using such imagery and whether it sells better, though that old saying of ‘sex sells’ might ring a bell." While the adage persists, concrete evidence supporting its efficacy in driving long-term brand value or sales is conspicuously absent.

The discussion then naturally turns to controversy itself. Does sparking outrage, as these ads often do, count as a "win" for a brand by generating buzz? Ko was resolute in his answer: "Controversy is never a win – especially for long-term brand building." While some might argue that "all publicity is good publicity," the damage to brand reputation, consumer trust, and ethical standing can be profound and lasting. Loo, whose impressive portfolio includes campaigns for the BBC, Jewel Changi Airport, and Singtel, offered a slightly more nuanced perspective, suggesting that "healthy public discourse around a campaign can sometimes be considered a success." However, he quickly distinguished this from the destructive backlash faced by objectifying ads.

A critical factor enabling the proliferation of such content, particularly in the digital realm, is the existing regulatory landscape. Unlike traditional media, where advertisements often undergo scrutiny from bodies like Singapore’s Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) or the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), social media platforms present fewer robust guardrails. Ko pointed out this disparity, noting the relative lack of pre-vetting or consistent enforcement for digital content. Loo, however, highlighted an internal safeguard at TBWA: "Using sex to sell is not even an option for my team, and such ideas would not pass any internal reviews." This suggests that some agencies proactively uphold ethical standards, but this self-governance is not universal.

So, is objectification ever truly necessary for effective advertising? Loo was firm in his rejection of the premise. "Attention can be earned through shock, humor, a disruptive concept, craft, or storytelling. Sex appeal is simply a low-brow method to capture attention." Ko added, "Come on, it’s 2026 and we need to do better. Consumers are ahead of the curve – which explains why more brands are getting called out these days." Loo, a father of two young daughters, emphasized a personal commitment: "I have an added responsibility to produce work which creates a world that is healthy for them." This highlights the growing realization that advertising has a profound impact beyond sales figures, shaping cultural norms and perceptions.

The persistence of sexual objectification in advertising in 2026, Dr. Michelle Ho, Assistant Professor of Feminist and Queer Cultural Studies at the National University of Singapore’s Department of Communications and New Media, argues, is not merely an advertising problem but a symptom of deeper societal issues. "Even though it is 2026, not 1996, sexual objectification continues to exist simply because gender inequality remains present in our society," she stated.

Dr. Ho, who leads Campus Sexual Misconduct in a Digital Age (CASMIDA), an independent research project examining the role of digital technology in sexual misconduct on university campuses in Singapore, emphasizes that the concern extends far beyond advertising. Her team’s research consistently shows that women disproportionately constitute the victim-survivors of online sexual harms. "It’s a pattern deeply rooted in the same entrenched gender norms of imagery that sexualizes, objectifies and dehumanizes women," she explained. The regular consumption of objectifying imagery normalizes other forms of violation, including non-consensual content, creating a "vicious cycle" where harmful portrayals in media contribute to real-world harms.

Supporting this observation, a recent gender norms study by SG Her Empowerment (SHE) in Singapore revealed a troubling trend: millennial and Gen Z men were more likely than older men to condone spousal violence. Natalie Chia, SHE’s Director of Research, posited that this correlation might stem from younger men’s greater exposure to sexualized content, including depictions of violence and coercion, readily available online. This suggests that objectification in advertising and media is not merely offensive but contributes to a broader cultural ecosystem that can desensitize individuals to gender-based violence and inequality. The continued appeal of objectification to some, while being offensive to others, points to "a moment of immense polarization when it comes to gendered attitudes," as Asst Prof Ho aptly put it.

If change is indeed uneven and slow, what truly moves the needle? The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Singapore’s leading women’s rights and gender equality advocacy organization, has been at the forefront of this fight for decades. Lim Shoon Yin, AWARE’s executive director, recounted a significant victory in 2011 when AWARE successfully challenged a London Weight Management ad that offensively linked a woman’s professional and personal rejection to her weight. The advertisement was eventually removed following intervention by the then-Media Development Authority. Lim notes that "Public awareness has sharpened considerably," attributing this to decades of advocacy work, including AWARE’s contributions to ASAS’s original guidelines in 1989. However, she laments that "the enforcement has barely evolved."

Singapore’s current system for regulating advertisements still heavily relies on industry self-regulation, which often lacks meaningful penalties for egregious violations. Transparency remains a significant issue; in 2022, local digital news platform TheHomeGround Asia reported that ASAS’s secretariat declined to disclose the number of complaints it had received about sexist ads, raising concerns about accountability.

A new and complex layer has emerged with the advent of digital platforms: algorithms. Lim explained that algorithms are inherently shaped by engagement data, which, unfortunately, often favors sexualized imagery. This creates a perverse incentive system, amplifying content that objectifies women and even encouraging individuals to "self-objectify" to gain visibility and traction. "People aren’t choosing to self-objectify – platform reward systems are designed to incentivize it," Lim asserted, highlighting the structural nature of the problem.

For meaningful change to occur, a dual approach is required. Firstly, a cultural shift is imperative, beginning with comprehensive education that fosters respect for personal agency and cultivates the ability to discern when content crosses a line. This includes recognizing when "sexy" is being used as a lazy substitute for genuine creativity or when a norm is built upon inherent gender disparity, as Asst Prof Ho emphasized. Secondly, regulatory frameworks must be updated to keep pace with the rapidly evolving digital media landscape. Brands that consistently violate ethical boundaries need to face tangible consequences beyond mere apologies issued after public outcry. "Brands need to review campaigns before they launch, at the concept stage, rather than pulling them once the backlash has already landed," urged AWARE’s Lim.

Luyuan apologized. Dettol apologized. These apologies, while necessary, are merely reactions to public pressure. The fundamental challenge now is to channel this public outrage into lasting, systemic change in how brands portray women, ensuring that marketing practices reflect the values of equality, respect, and authenticity that society increasingly demands in 2026 and beyond.

CNA Women is a section on CNA Lifestyle that seeks to inform, empower and inspire the modern woman. If you have women-related news, issues and ideas to share with us, email CNAWomen [at] mediacorp.com.sg.