Are copycat ads always bad?

28 July 2005

This ad for Fanta Z soft drink elicted 272 complaints and can now only be shown after 9pm.

KFC, Fanta Z, Chupa-Chups, Atlantic Records and Wanadoo have all elicited complaints to the ASA in the last six months due to worries that their ads might encourage children to mimic harmful behaviour. With some complaints upheld and others rejected, this public concern has put the spotlight on the ASA's stance regarding emulation in advertising.

The most difficult task the ASA is faced with is determining whether an action being featured in advertising carries a significant risk of harm, or is sufficiently anti-social to warrant a ban. 

Research and experience shows that ads more likely to cause harmful emulation include those in which the behaviour is easy to copy, the scene seems realistic, the behaviour is portrayed as cool and the product or advertising appeals to a young audience.

All these elements were present in a television ad for Wanadoo which aired in March. The ad was set in a scrap yard full of smashed cars showing young people frolicking around in between the wreckage. The risk of injury through broken class and jagged metal was clear and consequently the ad was banned by the ASA.

The ASA also upheld the complaints it received about ads for both Atlantic Records (March 2005) and the British Heart Foundation (June 2002) on the grounds they featured harmful actions that could easily be copied by children. The former depicted a young man sniffing an aerosol can and the latter showed an elderly woman with a plastic bag over her head.

In contrast, the ASA rejected the 1671 complaints it received for an ad for KFC's Zinger Crunch Salad that showed women singing with their mouths full (adjudication published 1 June 2005). The ASA Council did not agree with complainants that the ads were a significant contributor to bad manners or that they increased the risk of choking on food.

Coca-Cola's TV ad for Fanta Z also received 272 complaints from viewers saying it was encouraging children to spit. The complaint was upheld (adjudication published 6 July 2005) because the ASA agreed it would particularly appeal to children and encourage anti-social behaviour. However, it did not receive an outright ban. Instead, the advertiser was asked to adjust its media schedule so that ads would only air after 9pm when less young people would be watching.

For further information see Copycat Kids?, an ITC-commissioned report on research into emulation risks .