10th ASA Annual Consumer Conference

Location: Urbis, Manchester

Date: 17 November 2004

Over 60 parents, teachers, students, community workers, religious leaders and local business people joined the ASA's Chairman and Director General at Urbis in Manchester for the Authority's 10th Annual Consumer Conference. 

Opening the conference, the ASA's Chairman, Lord Borrie QC, said that there had never been a more important time to hear the views of the local community on advertising and its impact.  He talked about recent government proposals to restrict advertising for certain foods and possibly alcohol, and the current public debate about advertisements that are aimed at children.  He noted that daily commuters in Manchester were likely to see between 80 and 100 advertisements between getting up in the morning and arriving at work.  Additionally, they are likely to see 250 television advertisements every week, 350 posters and 400 newspaper advertisements.

Director General, Christopher Graham, summarised the new ‘one-stop shop’ for advertising complaints that was launched on 1 November 2004 as well as telling delegates about how the ASA handled complaints.  He explained that all complaints are judged by the ASA Council, a group of 15 people, the majority of whom are free from advertising interests and recruited by public advertisement. Delegates were then invited to take on Council's role in a workshop setting, debating a series of real advertisements and summaries of the complaints received about them.   These sessions provided plenty of opportunity for delegates to share their views.  ASA Chairman Lord Borrie and council member Pauline Thomas were on hand to share council’s experiences and, more importantly, to listen to the views of the delegates!

For information on our 2005 event in Leeds please click here.

Attendee Comments:

”Very glad I came – I know so much more about the ASA and appreciate their role in monitoring adverts.”
“A thoroughly enjoyable experience.  It is good to know there is an organsation which keeps an eye on standards in the public interest.”
“Very thought-provoking”

Workshops

Four cases were discussed in each workshop.  The ads used and the feed back received is detailed below:

Land Rover Freelander Sport

Issue

With dramatic background music, an advertisement for the Freelander Sport featured a woman taking a gun from a drawer. Brandishing the weapon, she hurried after a man seen leaving the house. When he got into the car, she aimed the gun, and then shot it skyward. It became clear that the gun was a starting pistol. The man smiled and drove away.

A total of 348 viewers contacted us, concerned that the commercial glamorised or normalised guns and gun culture, making it appear that guns are fun and cool. The majority pointed out that handguns are illegal in the UK, and also that the gun was stored irresponsibly.

Response

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) considered the advertising to be acceptable. It was convinced that the ‘film noir’ style, foreign setting, cinematic music and atmosphere of suspense made it clear that this was a piece of drama, not reality set in contemporary urban Britain.

The agency took guidance on how to use the starting pistol in a professional manner. It said the commercial was written to leave the viewer with the impression that the Freelander Sport triggered sporting behaviour. It was intended to be humorous, with the wife playing a joke on the husband. The intention was not to promote gun culture.

Delegates Decision  – Not Upheld (7 uphold, 9 not uphold)

Delegates didn't feel that the fact that the gun was a starting pistol, rather than a weapon, should affect the regulator's decision.  Almost all the groups expressed concerns about the way in which the ad appeared to glamorise guns and some delegates were particularly concerned that teenagers and young people might be influenced by the ad.  Some delegate groups decided not to uphold, providing the ad was only shown after the watershed.

Ofcom Decision (Ofcom decision as complaints received prior to the ASA taking over the regulation of broadcast advertising.

Television advertisements are designed to sell; glamorisation is part and parcel of the process. Well-made television advertisements are powerful and compelling; sometimes more compelling than any equivalent length clip from a programme or a film, precisely because the advertiser needs to concentrate and communicate a clear message in a very short space of time and the narrative context of a film or programme is missing. Therefore the rules on advertising are much more restrictive than the rules on programme content where matters of offence or potential harm are concerned.
The same rationale applies to the appearance of guns in advertising, but with one added element. Given regular coverage of high-profile shooting incidents and public concern about the wider social impact of the so-called gun culture, the glamorisation and normalisation of guns, even indirectly, is simply offensive to many people. Ofcom has a specific duty under the Communications Act to ensure that broadcast output does not cause widespread offence.

In this advertisement, the starter pistol was used in both an apparent casual manner and just for fun, to signal the start of the man’s journey. The domestic setting, together with the gun simply lying in a drawer, normalised the ownership of guns. Although some effort was made to distance the scene from everyday life in Britain, this was not obvious nor did it provide sufficient distance from what UK viewers would consider to be a familiar setting. For example, the car was a right hand drive model.
Taking all of the circumstances into account including the very strong feeling expressed by the complainants, we concluded that the commercial, albeit unintentionally, made light of genuine public concern about gun culture. It therefore breached the Advertising Standards Code Rule 6.1 (Offence).

Conclusion     The advertising must not be shown again.

Ben & Jerrys

Issue

Objections to a tube panel advertisement that showed a number of different sized hand prints with names printed beside them.  The headline stated "WE USUALLY TRY TO PUT A HANDFUL OF WALNUTS IN EVERY TUB.  HOW MANY YOU GET DEPENDS ON WHO MAKES IT.  Vermont's finest ice cream makers  BEN & JERRY'S Homemade Ltd".  The complainant objected that the advertisement misleadingly implied the ingredients were added by hand whereas he believed the ice cream was factory made and the ingredients were added by machines.

Advertisers Response

The advertisers explained that the claim "handful" referred to a measurement commonly used in cooking and food preparation.  They explained that it was not an accurate measurement but that it described their process of adding walnuts to tubs of ice cream.  The advertisers said there was a minimum and maximum amount of walnuts that were added to each tub, which meant some tubs had more walnuts than others.  The advertisers maintained that, although their ice creams were factory made, they did not use scientific methods to ensure exact quantities of walnuts in each tub.  The advertisers believed the term "handful" was the best way to communicate their manufacturing process.

Delegates Decision – Split decision (6 uphold,6 not uphold)

Delegates had mixed views on this ad, with some speculating that the names next to the hands could be the names of real people.  However, most of the delegates acknowledged that members of the public seeing the ad were unlikely to take it seriously.  Despite this, some participants felt that the ad was still misleading and should have been withdrawn.

ASA Council Decision – not upheld

The Authority considered that, because the quantity of walnuts added to each tub of ice cream was chosen randomly, not scientifically and the amount in each tub would, therefore, vary, the claim was unlikely to mislead.

Michelob

Issue

Objection to a poster, in London Underground stations, for beer.  The advertisement showed a photograph of two joggers next to a picture of the product and the headline "Lose the carbs.  Not the taste."  Text beneath the headline stated "Michelob ULTRA is the new low carbohydrate, low calorie version of the world famous Michelob lager beer."

1.  The complainant objected that the advertisement was misleading, because it suggested that consuming the advertised product helped to improve fitness.

2.  The Authority challenged whether the advertisement was irresponsible, because it implied the product could be consumed, as part of a healthy lifestyle, to maintain fitness.

Advertisers Response

The advertisers believed the advertisement was not irresponsible towards consumers and society; they explained that they had created a beer lower in carbohydrates and calories than competitors' premium brand lagers and said they wanted to inform consumers that there was an alternative to those lagers.  The advertisers asserted that the advertisement did not state or imply that a reduced carbohydrate or calorie level in the beer would make a difference to a person's fitness or health; they believed exercise was obviously the only factor leading to the fitness of the joggers in the photograph. The advertisers pointed out that the advertisement included the statement "Michelob Ultra thanks you for drinking responsibly"; they believed nothing in the advertisement would lead consumers to adopt unwise styles of drinking and said the alcoholic percentage of the beer was identified on the poster.  The advertisers stated that the advertisement was intended to convey the message that a premium beer, which did not contain the carbohydrates or calories of its competitors, was a refreshing way to reward consumers for their exertions.  They explained that the target audience of the brand were those who enjoyed an active lifestyle and that the use of active imagery in the advertisement aimed to appeal to this customer base, because they were those most likely to be interested in a beer lower in carbohydrates and calories; the advertisers said they did not believe the use of the image suggested that consuming the product would itself enhance or maintain fitness.

Delegates Decision –  Point 1  Not Upheld (5 uphold, 7 not uphold)
Point 2  Not Upheld (5 uphold, 7 not uphold)

While almost all delegates agreed with the ASA that the ad was misleading, opinions were split as to whether or not the ad was irresponsible.  Many people expressed the view that it should be up to the individual to make their own decisions about healthy lifestyles.  Others pointed out that because the beer was a low carbohydrate one, it may have health benefits over 'normal' beer.

ASA Council Decision

1.  Complaint not upheld
The Authority noted the advertisers' comments.  Because it considered that the advertisement did not encourage consumers to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise or suggest that consumption of the advertised product helped to improve fitness, it did not object on that point.

2.  Upheld
The Authority considered that the image of the joggers, in conjunction with the claims about the reduced carbohydrate and calorie content of the beer, implied the product could be consumed as part of a healthy lifestyle to maintain fitness.  The Authority acknowledged that that had not been the advertisers' intention and noted the advertisement contained a sensible drinking message.  It concluded, however, that the advertisement irresponsibly implied drinking the beer could help maintain health.  It welcomed the advertisers' assurance not to publish the advertisement again and noted that they had already consulted the CAP Copy Advice team for advice on future, similar advertisements.

Midway Games

Issue

Objections to a poster, for a console game, that featured a scene that seemed to be set inside a train carriage.  It showed a hooded youth wiping his bloodied hand on the shoulder of a white, middle-aged businessman.  Behind the hooded youth was a black man also dressed in a hooded sweatshirt, and behind him was another person wearing a hooded sweatshirt.  On the poster was a logo constructed of blades, partly covered with blood, with text that stated "MORTAL KOMBAT.  DEADLY ALLIANCE".  Underneath the logo was text that stated "IT'S IN US ALL".  The complainants objected that the poster was:

1. irresponsible, because it confused real-life crime with a game and might incite people, especially children, to violence;

2. offensive, because it seemed to link the black man with the perpetrator of the crime, thus depicting a racial stereotype of black men as criminals and

3. offensive, distressing and unsuitable to be seen by children.

Advertisers Response

1. The advertisers asserted that the poster did not depict a criminal or violent act; they believed it contained nothing that could be imitated or copied to negative effect.  They stated that the game was 18-rated and not targeted at anyone under that age.  The advertisers added that the game was a fantasy product that required skill by the player; they believed the poster suggested that everybody had that fantasy skill inside them. 

2. The advertisers stated that they did not support or encourage racism.  They asserted that the black man had no connection with the suggested crime and that the two men in the poster were chosen because they were friends and available for the photographic shoot, not because they were of a particular race or colour. 

3. The advertisers asserted that, because it promoted an 18-rated game, the poster did not target children.  They contended that the image was neither distressing nor offensive. 

Delegates Decision –  Point 1 Upheld (12 uphold, 0 not uphold)
Point 2 Not Upheld (3 uphold, 9 not uphold)
Point 3 Upheld (12 uphold, 0 not uphold)

Delegates were concerned that a computer game with an 18 certificate had been publicised where children might see the poster.  One delegate pointed out that the logo on the poster featured an axe which added to the implication of violence.  The majority of delegates didn’t feel that that the poster promoted racism. 

ASA Council Decision

1. Complaints upheld
The Authority considered that people were likely to infer from the poster that a violent act had been committed.  The Authority noted the game was 18-rated but was concerned that the advertisers had used an untargeted medium that could be seen by children.  The Authority concluded that the poster condoned violence and was irresponsible.  It told the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Copy Advice team before advertising again.

2. Complaints not upheld
The Authority considered that, although dressed similarly to the person committing the crime, the black man seemed merely to be an unconcerned passenger on the train and not linked to the criminal.  It concluded that the poster did not reinforce a stereotype of black men as criminals and was not racist.

3. Complaints upheld
The Authority considered that, because of its graphic nature and implication of violence, the poster was distressing and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, especially in an untargeted medium that could be seen by children.  The Authority told the advertisers to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.