ASA Consumer Conference 2006
13 November 2006
ASA Consumer Conference 2006 venue: Watershed Media Centre, Bristol
If you are interested in hearing more about ASA events please email events@asa.org.uk.
The 12th ASA Consumer conference was held on the 30th November at the Bristol Watershed Media Centre. Over 50 members of the public attended the event and met with representatives from the ASA to take part in the on-going debate surrounding advertising standards. The event saw a cross section of the local public attend with representatives from local community workers, teachers, faith groups and businesses.
The morning opened with a presentation by the ASA chairman Lord Borrie who set the scene for the day by introducing the work of the ASA.
ASA Chairman, Lord Borrie QC introduces the ASA's Annual Consumer Conference
Lord Borrie was followed by ASA Director General, Christopher Graham. He gave attendees an overview of how advertising regulation works, what the ASA is designed to achieve, how it upholds standards in advertising and the issues that it has to deal with on a daily basis.
Following the presentations, the delegates took part in a workshop which gave them the opportunity to step in to the shoes of the ASA Council.
Delegates take part in workshop discusssions
They were asked to look at three ads that had received complaints to the ASA. In groups they were asked to examine the advert and complaints, measure them against the advertising codes and reach a general consensus as to whether or not they would uphold the complaints and have the ads withdrawn. The workshop opened up some good debate and raised some pertinent issues for both members of the public and the ASA.
The workshops are an insightful exercise for both the delegates and the ASA.
Delegates have the opportunity to experience how decisions are reached on issues such as offensiveness by the ASA Council and reach an understanding of the complexities behind the decisions taken.
The ASA gain useful information on public opinion from listening to the debate and noting the reactions to the decisions that have been made by the ASA Council.
The Annual Consumer Conference was a great success: it was well attended and the public played a full part in the debates that were raised on the day. The ASA was able to inform people about the work it does but most importantly it was able to listen to what the public thinks about advertising standards.
ASA Director General, Christopher Graham, listens to the views of a consumer.
Attendee Comments:
“My confidence in and understanding of the ASA has increased enormously”
“Thank you for an interesting, informative and thought provoking day”
“Reassuring to learn that the full range of textual/contextual factors is taken into account when decisions are made”
“Really useful to see and hear real examples and learn about ASA decisions”
“A worthwhile event – time well spent”
Workshops
Four cases were discussed in each workshop. The ads used are detailed below:
1. Insure and Go Ltd
Issue
A TV ad for Insure and Go showed a man standing in front of a bank of screens. A large plane appeared in the distance and flew closer until it went just over the top of the screens. Numbers appeared from the back of the plane instead of its jet stream. As it went overhead the screen shook and the noise of the plane got louder. The man said "Are you looking for low cost travel insurance but can't find the right price? Then stop and go to Insure and Go." He ducked as the plane flew overhead and his hair and shirt blew up. As he said "Stop!" the sound and shaking instantly stopped.
Viewers complained that the ad was offensive because it was reminiscent of the September 11 2001 incidents in New York when two planes were flown into the World Trade Centre.
Advertisers’ Response
The BACC said that although the final version of the ad was different to the script they had received, they did not think it was likely to cause widespread offence. They said the ad was approved with a note for TV stations to say it featured a spoof near-miss with a plane. They said they did not feel that the ad was so close to the events of September 11 to be unacceptable.
Smarter Communications said they in no way thought the ad would cause offence but apologised for any that had been caused. They said the use of an aircraft was the quickest visual shorthand for travel and they needed something that was dynamic enough to stop with an impact. They said the noise created by the plane added to the power of the commercial and amplified the silence when the man shouted "Stop!". They said the plane flying directly over the man's head, with his hair and shirt blowing up and him ducking, connected him to the image on the screens behind him and also enabled them to get a legible close up of the "jet-stream" of competitor prices.
Insure and Go contacted us prior to our investigation to warn of the possibility of complaints being received and advised us that they would pull the ad. They confirmed they had taken the decision to amend the start of the ad entirely and to remove the plane. They apologised for any offence caused and said it was unfortunate that no one had identified any link between the ad and the events of September 11 prior to broadcast.
ASA Council Decision - Complaints not upheld
We welcomed the prompt decision by Insure and Go to amend the ad and contact us to warn us of the complaints we were likely to receive. However, we agreed with the BACC that the imagery was acceptable and that a cautionary note to broadcasters was sufficient to minimise any offence caused due to insensitive scheduling, for example, around news items featuring plane crashes. We accepted that an ad for travel insurance was entitled to use an image of a plane and that, even though it appeared to fly towards a building, it was clear quite quickly that the plane was not going to crash. We considered that any similarities between the ad and the events of September 11 were incidental and not likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
We considered the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.1 (Offence) but did not find it in breach.
2. Macmillan’s Bar
Issue
A radio ad for Macmillan’s Bar and Restaurant that stated “top ten favourite things to do on the way home from work: adjust my car seat into the recline position … beat the lights at the West Worthing crossing … stop off at Macmillan’s Bar for a friendly drink and a chat … stay at Macmillan’s Bar for another friendly drink and a bite to eat … with a free glass of wine …”.
A listener believed the ad promoted bad driving, including drink driving. He believed the suggestions to recline the driver's seat when going home, beat the lights, drive to the bar and have at least two drinks, were irresponsible and particularly unsuitable for broadcast during times when children or teenagers were likely to be listening.
CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code: rule 11.4 (Safety - alcoholic drinks).
Advertisers’ Response
Splash FM said the ad was intended to be humorous, not irresponsible, and they had not received any direct complaints. They argued that the drinks referred to in the ad were not necessarily alcoholic and the term “beating the lights” did not mean driving through a red light. They believed the reference to the recline position of a seat did not encourage dangerous driving, because listeners would not necessarily recline as far as the horizontal position; they said their intention was to convey comfort and relaxation after work. Splash FM said the first part of the ad referred to a single listener, but the offer of a free glass of wine was positioned in the latter half of the ad and was intended to refer to couples who were eating in the restaurant. They pointed out that the ad campaign had ended and would not be repeated.
ASA Council Decision - Upheld
The ASA welcomed Splash FM’s decision to stop using the ad, and considered that local listeners were unlikely to infer from the reference to reclining the seat and beating the lights that the ad condoned dangerous driving. We were concerned, however, that the reference to motorists stopping off at the restaurant and bar while driving home from work, in conjunction with the promotion of a free glass of wine, irresponsibly linked drinking alcohol and driving.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code, section 3, rule 11.4 (Safety - alcoholic drinks) and must not be broadcast again.
3. NSPCC
Issue
Objection to a mailing, in the style of a child's birthday card, which highlighted the issue of paedophiles preying on children. The envelope was green and had a typeface in the style of a handwritten address and a stamp. It contained a birthday card, the front of which stated, "Birthday Surprise!" and showed a cartoon of a child kicking a football. The inside of the card stated "Jamie's abuser never once forgot his birthday. x" in what looked like hand writing. The card continued in hand written style and stated, "We're sorry if that message shocked you. But remembering birthdays is just one of the ways a paedophile wins the trust of a child. In Jamie's case, his abuser also made a note of his favourite colour and toys ... We're only asking you to read about this because you can help, and you will definitely prevent a child from suffering abuse if you do." The other inside page of the card contained an explanation of the work of the NSPCC in combating paedophilia and information on how the recipient could help by making a donation of £10 per month.
The complainants objected that the mailing was:
1. misleading as it was disguised as a piece of personal correspondence and
2. offensive and had the potential to be highly distressing to a recipient if they themselves had been abused as a child.
Advertiser’s Response
The NSPCC said the mailing was intended to raise awareness of the distressing reality of child abuse and to show readers how they could help the NSPCC to counter it. They accepted that the subject matter would always elicit strong feelings amongst some recipients but maintained the mailing addressed what was a disturbing issue in a sensitive manner, aimed to minimise any distress caused. The NSPCC said the mailing was based on case studies and was intended to highlight the solution rather than the problem, in the shape of the services offered and action taken against paedophiles. The NSPCC pointed out that the mailing in no way depicted or described child abuse and focused on methods used by paedophiles to 'groom' children. They maintained that they had received letters of support from victims of abuse who had received NSPCC mailings thanking the organisation for its work. The NSPCC said they depended on donations from the public and pointed out that the birthday card envelope was designed to ensure a greater response among recipients, who were described as 'time poor and difficult to engage'. The NSPCC maintained that the mailings were sent only to named adults and that any list data they received was thoroughly vetted to exclude any recipients under the age of 16. They said they had no intention to repeat the direct mailing but they had used the creative as the basis for a magazine insert and they wished to use it in that medium again.
ASA Council Decision – Partially upheld
1. Complaint upheld
The ASA noted the NSPCC's intention to address the issue of child abuse. We noted that there was nothing on the envelope to identify the mailing as a marketing communication and considered it likely to mislead recipients into believing it was was personal correspondence. We concluded that the mailing was not clearly identifiable as a marketing communication and told the NSPCC to correct the issue in future mailings.
The mailing breached CAP Code clause 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers).
2. Complaint not upheld
We accepted that the NSPCC aimed to raise awareness of the issue of child abuse and that such a distressing subject was likely to cause discomfort when presented in any medium. We noted the birthday card would be seen by some as hard-hitting but also noted the absence of any explicit reference to abuse and the attempt to focus on the positives of the NSPCC's work in supporting children and bringing paedophiles to justice. We considered that the recipients were likely to understand the importance of the issue the mailing presented and that the mailing balanced the distress and offence caused by the issue of child abuse with the need to raise awareness of it. We also considered that because the mailing was clearly targeted at adult recipients, it was unlikely to be seen by children and that individuals who had suffered abuse as children would be likely to appreciate the work of the NSPCC and the message contained within the mailing. We concluded that, if clearly identifiable as a marketing communication, the approach was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or undue fear and distress.
We investigated the mailing under CAP Code clauses 5.1 (Decency) and 9.1 (Fear & distress) but did not find it in breach.
4. Barclays Bank plc
Issue
A TV ad for Barclays Bank had an ex-kids restriction to keep it away from programmes made specifically for children. It showed a man being stung in the mouth by a bee or wasp that had climbed into his can of drink. He jumped up in pain and ran towards a nearby lake. As he leant over a jetty his face was visibly swollen. He tried to splash his face but fell into the water emerging at the edge of the lake covered in weeds and mud and howling in pain. He then bumped into a bin. As he staggered towards a nearby restaurant people began to scream. The police arrived and shot a dart into his rear which made him collapse. One policeman then placed his foot on the body as another photographed the scene. The voiceover said "Statistically, you're more likely to be arrested than change your bank account".
1. The majority of the viewers said the ad was offensive to people who suffered from allergies because it made light of a potentially fatal situation.
2. 91 viewers said they felt personal distress from seeing the ad because either they or people they were close to suffered from allergies or anaphylaxis. 23 viewers said that they or people they knew had nearly died or actually died from an adverse reaction as shown.
3. Seven viewers said their children, ranging from ten months to eight years of age, were scared by the images of the man with the swollen face emerging from the lake or of the bee or wasp in the can. 12 viewers said that, because of the man's face and the way he was shot at, the ad was too horrific to be shown on TV either at all or without a further restriction.
4. Seven viewers said the way the police took photos of the man and stood on him towards the end of the ad reminded them of either "happy slapping" or alleged soldier activity in the Iraq war and was therefore unsuitable to be shown.
BCAP TV Advertising Code: 6.1 (Offence) and 6.4 (Personal distress)
Advertisers’ Response
1. Bartle Bogle Hegarty (BBH) said the ad was intended to show an exaggerated sequence of different events which ended with the hero being mistaken for a "Swamp Thing" rather than a man. As a result he was arrested thus dramatising the statistic that you are more likely to be arrested than change your bank account. They said the intention was always to develop an amusing and light-hearted commercial not to offend or upset viewers. They apologised to viewers who may have been offended or distressed by the ad. They said the ad was off air and Barclays had made the decision not to run it again regardless of the outcome of our investigation.
The BACC said they very much regretted that a number of viewers had been offended by the ad. They said they had cleared the ad in good faith with no intention to offend. They said great care and effort had been taken prior to the commercial being approved to try and ensure the final copy was compliant with the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code. They said they had reviewed seven separate versions of the pre-production script, considering at length both the factual claims and the tone of the execution. They considered that the final film was whimsical in the treatment of a bee sting, farcical in tone and generally light-hearted in its approach.
2. BBH said they had tried to make the special effects as exaggerated and hyperbolic as possible precisely to avoid causing distress to people who suffer from allergies or anaphylaxis.
The BACC said they also regretted that a number of viewers had experienced personal distress from the ad. They said at no point did the viewer see the character in any genuine distress and the ad featured a catalogue of pantomime routines thoroughly devoid of realistic or gritty horror with an air of general pandemonium. They said the suspension of reality was reinforced by the farcical way all the other characters considered him to be a creature, rather than a man stung by a bee. They said that they believed the ad was a surreal and comic set of bizarre events which allowed viewers to suspend their belief. They said they did not think the ad actively made fun of being stung by a bee but that it showed it as something painful, especially for the character that ended up being mistaken for a monster.
3. The BACC said the ad had been given an ex-kids restriction because they considered that very young viewers could well be scared by the characters face becoming puffy and disfigured. They said they did not consider a later restriction necessary for three reasons. First the "monster" was firmly established from the beginning as a normal, middle-aged man who subsequently changed because of a bee sting which would be understood by all but the very young. Second, the "monster" appeared as more of a benevolent and bumbling character than an aggressive or predatory one. They said that, if anything, he was likely to attract pity rather than fear. Third the face of the character was not hugely disfigured and still retained its human-like features so it was more an unfortunate "Quasimodo"- type character than an actual monster. For these reasons they considered only very young viewers could possibly be scared.
4. BBH said that at the end of the ad the man was mistaken for the "Swamp Thing" which was why he was shot with a tranquiliser dart. They said the final scene was intended to emulate the idea of hunters having caught a celebrated monster.
The BACC said they did not consider the final sequence was reminiscent of either "happy slapping" or prisoner maltreatment by soldiers in Iraq. They said they were not aware of this pose having been struck in any alleged Iraqi prisoner maltreatment or "happy slapping" case. They said it was a pastiche of the classic pose taken by big game hunters once they have bagged their quarry on the savannah. It was an outlandish pose when juxtaposed in the municipal park setting and, as it was done humorously, it reinforced the comic dialogue running throughout the ad and they considered viewers would see it as such.
ASA Council Decision – partially upheld
1. Complaints upheld
We welcomed the decision not to show the ad again and accepted that it was not intended to cause offence. However, we noted that many people face the reality that they might suffer a severe allergic reaction to a bee or wasp sting and therefore, despite the farcical turn of events, the ad was offensive to them.
2. Complaints upheld
We considered that a significant number of viewers who had experienced first-hand the seriousness of an acute adverse reaction to a bee or wasp sting were clearly distressed by seeing this ad and that it therefore breached the Code.
3. Complaints not upheld
We accepted that, for the most part, only very young viewers would be scared by the images shown and that an ex-kids restriction was appropriate. Although we considered the ad should not be shown again because it was offensive and had caused personal distress, we did not believe it was too gruesome or scary to be shown outside of children's programmes.
4. Complaints not upheld
We accepted that by the time the policemen tranquilised and captured the man he had been clearly dramatised as a monster of some kind. We did not consider it was reminiscent of either "happy slapping" or the alleged maltreatment of Iraqi detainees by soldiers.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code Rules 6.1 (Offence) and 6.4 (Personal distress) and should not be shown again.