ASA Adjudication on Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited

Ad

A poster for a new digital TV channel 'five US' stated "NOTHING GOOD EVER CAME OUT OF AMERICA".

Issue

1. The complainants, some of whom were US citizens, thought the ad was offensive and racist towards Americans.

2. 39 complainants thought that, because the ad did not state what it was advertising, it was irresponsible and distressing and could incite violence in areas where racial tension already existed.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2.

Channel 5 said that the ads were for a new digital channel, Five US, which would show the most highly regarded American drama, comedy, films and talk shows. They said the whole purpose of the channel was to celebrate and be positive about American TV and films and the purpose of the ads was to reflect that in two stages. The first set up the contention that nothing good had come out of America and the second proved that was wrong.

They said the complaints clearly related only to the first stage of the campaign, which was an opinionated statement that was designed not to be considered in isolation but as a precursor to follow-up posters that stated "Who says nothing good ever came out of America. The new channel from Five showcasing the best of the US" printed over images of American film icons. They said the original poster appeared on 120 sites for one week, after which all the posters were replaced with the second poster, which also appeared on a further 350 sites.

They said the campaign aimed to overturn perceptions in the UK that American TV was of low quality by capturing the public's imagination with the first poster and then, with the second poster, making it clear that the first poster had been produced for Five for the launch of a new channel. In that way, they believed any perceived anti-American sentiment would be overturned and that the country's highly regarded exports and talent would be highlighted.

They believed that by using the same poster sites in quick succession (as well as additional sites for the second poster), together with comparable language and typeface, the two stages of the campaign would be linked successfully in the public's mind. They believed most people would recognise the first poster as a marketing message and that they would expect a follow-up message to make the meaning of the statement clear. They believed that most people would have recognised the first poster as incomplete and would have delayed making a judgement until the entire message was clear.

They believed the reference to America was unlikely to be understood as a racially offensive comment because America was made up of so many different races and cultures. They said national stereotypes were frequently used in ads, where they were recognised as absurd and unrepresentative and not treated with the same sensitivity as references to racial or religious groups.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that the ad did not refer to a specific ethnic group and that the phrase was not an obvious racial insult in itself. While noting that some complainants had clearly found the term offensive, we did not consider it was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and 5.1 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We considered the statement had different connotations from a racially offensive comment because it did not refer to a specific ethnic group and was not an obvious racial insult. We noted the absence of the advertiser's identity but considered the ad's positioning, in clearly recognisable outdoor advertising sites, identified it sufficiently clearly as a commercial message. Despite the absence of identity, we considered the statement was relatively mild and did not directly incite violence. We also noted that the follow-up ad had been placed relatively soon after the first in both the same sites and considerably more additional ones. We acknowledged that some complainants had been concerned that the ad would have serious consequences but did not consider that the ad was likely to cause fear or distress or provoke violence or anti-social behaviour.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 (Decency), 9.1 (Fear and distress), 11.1 (Violence and anti-social behaviour) and 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications and identifying marketers), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)