Customer demands removal of suggestive ad from Barcelona bakery

Customer demands removal of suggestive bakery advertisement

What does it take for a customer to be offended by a bakery window? In Barcelona, a local shop has displayed a promotional video antiestéticaturing women in lingerie handling baking tools in a provocative manner. A customer, Berta, complained on the program Espejo Público, claiming she received no response from the establishment. According to her, the Instituto de la Mujer (Women's Institute) and the Ayuntamiento de Barcelona (Barcelona City Council) have stated they will have it removed. The owner, meanwhile, says he is "deeply surprised" by the reaction and defends his right to freedom of expression.

The bakery owner's response

The business owner has not apologized. On the contrary, he responded with an argument blending freedom of expression with personal taste. "They have talked to me about freedom of expression for six years. Don't you like cake advertisements with 30-year-old models in swimwear? Are you serious?", he declared. During the same intervention, he added that he also dislikes "naked elderly men on Barcelona's public beaches" and declared himself a supporter of "beautiful girls, high-quality bakery products, beautiful cars, and freedom of self-expression."

His reasoning has its own internal logic: if the human body is not an issue on a beach, he does not understand why it is an issue at a bakery. But the shop is not a beach. It is an establishment open to the general public, with minors entering to buy bread. That is the crux of the matter.

The customer's allegations against the video

Berta maintains that the offense lies not in the models' bodies, but in the context. During her appearance on Susanna Griso's program, she described the video as "implicitly prono" and noted that the content is "sens, degrading to women, inappropriate for the location, and out of place in Barcelona in 2025."

The customer explained that the matter is being "correctly channeled" thanks to the support of friends and contacts, and that institutions have promised to remove it.

There is a detail in her argument that does not go unnoticed: the appeal to "Barcelona in 2025" as a civilizational framework. As if the same video would be acceptable in other geographical or temporal coordinates. It is a rhetorical device that frames the problem as a matter of others' backwardness rather than her own judgment.

The double standard pointed out by critics

Many reactions to the case point to a contradiction. On Las Ramblas, there are shops selling ice cream and beer peine in phallic shapes, and no one intervenes. On television, programs with sensual content are broadcast at any hour. The difference, they argue, is who controls the narrative.

The argument is repeated with variations: if an ad is made by an establishment aligned with the orthodoxy, it is applauded; if it is made by a baker who does not belong to that circle, it is denounced. The complaint would not be against objectification, but against the aesthetics and the sender. It is a difficult hypothesis to prove, but it explains why the case has generated more indignation than other similar advertising scandals.

The role of institutions and the precedent

The Instituto de la Mujer and the Ayuntamiento de Barcelona have reportedly agreed to remove the video, according to the customer's version. There is no official confirmation in the available material, but the fact that an individual complaint activates two administrations says a lot about how soft censorship mechanisms work. A law is not necessary: a complaint and an institution willing to listen are enough.

The question left hanging is what criteria is being applied. Is it the content? Is it the location? Is it who broadcasts it? If the same video were in a lingerie shop, would there be a problem? If a television network aired it, would it be removed? The answers are not in the file.

The business: between free publicity and risk

The owner has achieved something that was not in his initial plan: having his bakery discussed in national media. The controversy has given him visibility that no conventional advertisement would have provided. If the video is removed, the shop's name is already on the map. If it is not removed, it remains a draw.

The economic calculation is simple: the cost of controversy is low and the advertising return is high. The only variable he does not control is an administrative sanction. There, he could indeed lose money. But even with a fine, the equation might still be profitable.

In the end, the bakery sells bread. The video sells something else. And the institutions, meanwhile, debate whether the problem is the models' bodies or the fact that someone decided to use them without asking permission.