ASA Adjudication on Masterfoods Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for Maltesers featured two women in a glass office chatting as to whether eating Maltesers made them feel naughty. On hearing the calorie content of a small bag of Maltesers, one woman decided they didn’t make her feel very naughty so, on seeing a man walk past the office, she went over to the glass and pulled up her top. Her back was to the camera but the back of her bra strap could be seen from behind. The man, clearly shocked by her actions, fell backwards over a chair. The other woman asked her did she feel better and she replied “Oh, much better”.

The ad was cleared by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) with an ex-kids restriction which meant it should not be shown in or around programmes made for or specifically targeted at children.

Issue

1. Some viewers said the ad was unsuitable to be broadcast before 9 pm as it gave children the wrong impression and could encourage them to copy the act.

2. Others complained that the ad was offensive and sexist and could be seen as condoning sexual harassment.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Masterfoods Ltd did not respond to the complaints.

1. The BACC said they acknowledged that the ad may not have been deemed acceptable to be shown around programmes aimed at young viewers and therefore gave it an ex-kids timing restriction.  They considered, however, that because it was set in a grown-up environment the ad would be of little interest to children and this therefore made the womans actions less likely to be the kind of behaviour they would mimic.  They said the tone of the ad was jovial and light-hearted and that, in their opinion, no further restrictions were necessary.

2. The BACC said there was no indication of the man looking distressed or having being sexually harassed; he was clearly shocked and surprised by her silly behaviour. They said that they did not believe her behaviour was predatory adding that she was behind a glass wall and in a different room to the man.  Nor did they see it as threatening or sexual.  They added that the woman only exposed her bra which they argued was no more offensive than exposing a bikini.

Assessment

1. Complaints not upheld

The ASA noted that the ad had been given an ex-kids timing restriction.  We considered that the behaviour shown was not harmful but acknowledged that it could be seen as inappropriate.  We therefore understood why some parents might not want their young children to see or copy it.  We considered that the timing restriction that had been imposed was sufficient enough to keep this ad away from times when younger children would be watching TV alone.  We did not consider that the ad needed to be kept away from times when older children would be watching TV and therefore agreed the ex-kids restriction imposed was appropriate.

2. Complaints not upheld

We noted the BACC's comments that the woman was not topless and was clearly wearing a bra.  We also noted that viewers could only see the back of the woman.  Although we recognised that some viewers would consider the womans actions to be entirely inappropriate and tasteless we did not consider that the ad was likely to cause either serious or widespread offence; this seemed to be borne out by the small number of complaints received.  Furthermore, we did not consider the ad would be seen by the majority of viewers as either encouraging or condoning sexist behaviour or indeed advocating sexual harassment in the workplace.  We therefore agreed with the BACC.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.3.1 (Mental Harm), 7.3.2 (Physical Harm), 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions), 6.1 (Offence) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of Advertisements rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.