Joëlle Letsch of the National Women’s Council (CNFL) describes the advert as full of stereotypes and clearly sexist. She points out that men are shown with muscular arms, while women are depicted wearing high heels and long fingernails. The women appear against a red background, while the men are set against a blue one. She says these are images from the past, reminiscent of the last century.
Isabelle Medinger of the Luxembourg Commission for Ethics in Advertising (CLEP), shares this view. She says the campaign makes unnecessary use of outdated stereotypes, portraying women as if they always have long red nails and wear high heels. By contrast, she notes that the situations in which men are shown are far more varied.
Medinger stresses that the advert runs counter to CLEP’s ethical code on discrimination and diversity in gender roles. She adds that an advertisement does not have to show nudity to be misogynistic, as even subtle suggestions can be enough. In her view, there is a complete lack of diversity in the roles assigned to men and women in the campaign.
Medinger suggests the campaign may have been a deliberate provocation and says she cannot understand why such imagery would still be used today. The National Women’s Council also says there is no plausible explanation for why such imagery was used. Line Wies of the feminist platform JIF says the campaign shows that, even in 2026, some still believe sexism can be used to sell products under the idea that “sex sells”. While such imagery is seen less often in public spaces than in the past, she says it remains omnipresent on social media.
Line Wies also underlined the broader role of advertising, noting that marketing can reinforce stereotypes but can also help to challenge and put them in the past. On a positive not, she and the other spokeswomen welcomed the public debate triggered by the campaign, adding that many women and men had reacted to the advert to show that they do not identify with the images presented.
In response to RTL’s enquiry, Munhowen has issued a written statement saying the company never intended to judge or categorise people or to assign value based on their consumption habits. The company apologised that some of the visuals were perceived differently from what was intended and said it would adapt them as much as possible.
