Social good ads can't always rely on shock tactics

15 May 2007

A cropped image from an ad that was part of a recent Department of Health anti-smoking campaign

It’s generally accepted that, to help highlight and relieve shocking conditions that exist in the world, ads for good causes can use images that some people may find shocking.  But sometimes the creative treatment goes beyond what the cause can justify.  A recent ASA ruling against an anti-smoking ad indicates where the boundaries lie.

Department of Health “get unhooked” campaign crosses the line of acceptability.

In the run up to the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, the Department of Health ran a cross-media campaign to encourage smokers to get help to give up smoking.  The strapline was “Get unhooked” and the ads featured actors with fish hooks that were in their mouths and pulled at their cheeks.  The campaign appeared on TV, posters, Internet banner ads and the press.  The TV ads were restricted by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre, so that they should not be shown in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.

The ASA received several complaints that the ads were offensive, frightening and distressing, especially to children.

Defending the ads, the Department of Health said any fear created by the ads would pale into insignificance when compared with the physical and emotional harm caused to smokers (and their families and friends) who became ill or died as a result of smoking.  It said the ads did not encourage or condone violence or cruelty and the hook image was used to encourage smokers to stop smoking and prevent harm.

The ASA considered that, although the posters were shocking, the images were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to adults, who were likely to understand the seriousness of the anti-smoking message.  It considered, however, that, because they showed the hooks piercing the cheeks of the models the posters were likely to frighten and distress children.

The ASA upheld complaints about two of the TV commercials (those showing actors being dragged by the hooks in their mouths) but considered that the scheduling restriction on another two commercials (those in which the actors were shown removing the hooks) was sufficient.

The ASA did not uphold the complaints about the Internet ads , which were considered less graphic than the posters.  Likewise, the press ads were found not to breach the CAP Code.

Read the adjudication in full.

Some more rulings that offer guidance on where to draw the line

1. British Heart Foundation 



The complainants had two main concerns about this press ad. One was that the image of a woman suffering breathing difficulties with a plastic bag over her head was irresponsible because it might encourage emulation by children. The ASA ruled that, because of a real possibility that children would copy the action, the advertisers should not have shown the image in publications that could be seen by children.  The other was that the image was shocking and distressing.   Although it acknowledged that that might be so, the ASA considered that the use of the image was justified to communicate the advertisers' message about the distress that heart failure can cause.

2. Save the Children Fund



The ASA received six complaints from people worried that children might see this mailing from Save The Children Fund and not understand its full message . They were concerned that the children would suffer undue fear and distress by the suggestion that they would have an early death because they had brown eyes. The ASA was concerned that the nature of the mailing was not clear from the presentation of the envelope and that the images of the eyes were likely to cause distress to young children. The ASA asked the advertiser not to use the mailing in that form again.

3. Barnardos

Click here to see a PDF of the ads

The ASA published two separate adjudications on the campaign,; one on a complaint about the offensiveness of the campaign, the other on a complaint about the validity of some of the claims that the advertisers made. 476 people complained to the ASA that the campaign was offensive, shocking and unduly distressing, especially if seen by children.  The ASA acknowledged that the advertisers was trying to get across a serious message but nevertheless considered that it had used shocking images to attract attention and had therefore breached the code. The ASA did not agree with the complainants' beliefs that the ads were irresponsible and could encourage emulation by children but told the advertiser not to repeat the advertisements. Separately, three people contacted the ASA to challenge claims made in the advertisements. The ASA agreed with the complainants' assertions that the ads implied that most babies born in poverty led a life of squalor and became drug users. But Barnardos prove those implications and the ASA concluded that the ads were misleading. It did not, however, uphold a complaint that the advertiser had misled by implying that Barnardos had set up services to address child poverty.  The ASA Council considered that the advertiser had shown that the services offered could help families to break the cycle of poverty, albeit indirectly.

Copy advice could save your campaign

One of the easiest ways for advertisers and agencies to make sure their chosen creative execution is likely to be acceptable is simply to consult the CAP Copy Advice team about any press, outdoor, Internet or cinema campaign they are planning to run.  The Copy Advice team can give a steer in the right direction from the early stages of the campaign right through to the final artwork. It will use past adjudication,s like those above, to help get ads in line with the rules.

If you work for a media owner, you too can get peace of mind by checking any submitted artwork to the team to ensure the ads you carry aren’t likely to fall foul of the rules.

Consult CAP Copy Advice on 020 7492 2100 or copyadvice@cap.org.uk.