The stuff of nightmares?
Most of us can remember being scared something we watched on TV as children. But how many of us can remember being scared by an advertisement?
Whilst people tend to associate scary images on TV with programme content, it is easy to forget that advertising is a powerful visual medium that can fire the over-active imaginations of the younger viewer and even frighten them. This was certainly the case when six parents contacted the ASA to complain about two advertisements for Marmite.
The first ad began in a supermarket where a woman ran screaming and in terror out into the street. A large amorphous brown blob then appeared, squeezing through the entrance to the supermarket, whilst a young couple were seen running away from it and trying to hide. A crowd of people were also shown running away from the blob as it advanced down the street. Suddenly, the young woman realised that the blob was made of Marmite, a smile spread over her face, she began running towards the blob and dived into it. Other people on the street were seen either running away or running towards the blob and diving in. As the woman appeared half submerged in the blob, eating Marmite and smiling, onscreen text stated, “YOU EITHER LOVE IT OR HATE IT.” The second ad followed the same theme.
The six viewers who complained were upset because their children aged between two and three years had been distressed by the ad. It was broadcast on a children’s TV channel and around children’s programming. The general consensus amongst the viewers who contacted the ASA was that the ad had terrified their children; some said their children had refused to watch TV as a result and two said their children had had nightmares. Because of the adverse effect the ad had on these young children the ASA decided to formally investigate the complaints.
In defending its decision not to place a scheduling restriction on the ad the body responsible for pre-clearing the commercial, the BACC, pointed out that the horror depicted was very mild and clearly comical. No one was hurt, the blob didn’t attack anyone and some people even dived into it with smiles on their faces. They believed that the fact people were positively attracted to the blob and were shown emerging from it unharmed and happy emphasized the message that the blob was not a thing of terror.
Responding to the complaints, the advertiser said it would liaise with the BACC and revise the broadcast schedule so that the ads did not appear around children’s programmes or on children’s channels. However, they said they wanted to avoid the imposition of a formal ex-kids scheduling restriction. This restriction would mean their ad could not be shown around programmes made for or specifically targeted at children. Because only very young children had been scared by the ad they believed this would limit the opportunity of the ad to reach a general audience.
Concluding its investigation, the ASA acknowledged that it was difficult to anticipate the effect the ad was going to have on young children. The ASA agreed with the advertiser’s decision not to broadcast in or around children’s programming but decided to impose a formal ex-kids restriction as the best way to reduce the likelihood of young children seeing the ad.