ASA Adjudication on Burger King Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for Burger King began with a couple seated in a restaurant. When their food arrived, the man looked disappointed and began to sing of his preference for Double Whoppers. He left the restaurant and was joined by increasing numbers of men who were seen rejecting similar restaurant food in favour of Double Whoppers and raising banners which read “Eat this meat” and “I am man.” Text at the bottom of the screen read “Product shown Double Whopper Sandwich. Subject to availability.” Later in the ad, a man attached to a harness was seen pulling a large truck while a woman held a Double Whopper just in front of him on a shovel with the voiceover “The Double Whopper. Man that’s a lot of meat.” It concluded with the strapline “Have it 100% your way.”

Issue

1.  Sustain, Northern Ireland Chest Heart & Stroke and five members of the public complained that the ad encouraged excessive consumption of unhealthy food.

2.  Sustain, Northern Ireland Chest Heart & Stroke and ten members of the public complained that the ad associated the consumption of large amounts of meat with masculinity, thus putting pressure on boys to consume unhealthy food.

3.  Three members of the public complained that the product shown in the ad appeared larger than the product sold in Burger King outlets.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1.  Burger King said the Food Standards Agencys (FSA) guidelines did not give a definition of an "unhealthy" food.  They said the FSA rated foods according to fat content, and that with 15 g of fat per 100 g the Double Whoppers fat content would be rated as moderate.  They believed it was acceptable to advertise a product that might be seen by some as unhealthy as long as the ad did not encourage excessive consumption of it.  They said the ad did not show anyone purchasing, holding or eating more than one Double Whopper.  They said the product contained around one-third of the recommended daily calorie intake and just over half the recommended daily fat intake for a man and that it was shown on its own as an entire meal.  For those reasons, they did not believe the ad encouraged or condoned excessive consumption of the product.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said scenes such as the man shown pulling a truck clearly established the ad as ironic fantasy which viewers were unlikely to take seriously.  They did not consider the ad made any direct health claims and so did not consider the FSAs guidelines applied.

2.  Burger King said the actors used in the ad were not celebrities, actors, pop stars or TV presenters; none of the characters appeared heroic, fit or sporty; some were overweight; some were bald and the music used in the ad was not current chart music.  For those reasons, they believed the ad was unlikely to appeal to or influence a young audience.  They said the actions shown in the ad and associated with physical strength and fitness were exaggerated for effect and that those together with other elements established the ad as comedy and distanced it from reality.  They said the ad was not shown around programmes aimed at children.

The BACC said that because the ad included ironic references and scenes of interpersonal violence that might not be understood by very young children, they had imposed a restriction that prevented it being shown around programmes aimed specifically at children.

3.  Burger King said that, although the Double Whopper shown in the ad was produced in a studio rather than in a restaurant, it contained exactly the same ingredients and was made to the same build and with the same operational procedures that applied in restaurants.  They said no special effects other than studio lighting had been used in photographing the product.

The BACC said they routinely warned advertisers that any visual representations of foodstuffs in TV ads should be in line with standard production and not exaggerated.  They said they had received an assurance from the advertising agency that the visual presentation of the product had not been exaggerated in any way during filming.

Assessment

1.  Not upheld

The ASA noted that the fat content by weight for the Double Whopper fell within the "moderate" band defined by the FSA; that it contained around one-third of the recommended daily calorie intake for a man; that it was shown on its own as an entire meal and that nobody in the ad was seen purchasing, holding or eating more than one.  We also considered that most foods, if consumed responsibly, could form part of a balanced diet.  With those points in mind, we did not consider the ad could be said to encourage excessive consumption of unhealthy food.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.7 (Health and safety) and 8.3.2 (Excessive consumption) but did not find it in breach.

2.  Not upheld

We considered the ad appeared to be designed to appeal to men.  However, we did not consider the men shown in the ad were figures that boys were particularly likely to consider heroic or wish to aspire to, or that the ad contained other elements - such as current chart music - that would appeal particularly to boys.  We considered the scenes featuring feats of strength were exaggerated to give a comic and ironic view of masculinity.  We did not consider they were likely to put pressure on boys to consume unhealthy food in the manner suggested by the complainants.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.7 (Health and safety) and 7.3.1 (Mental harm - children) but did not find it in breach.

3.  Upheld

We noted there were several side-on shots in the ad that showed the height of a Double Whopper.  We purchased Double Whoppers from two Burger King restaurants in central London.  Although the ones we purchased consisted of two burgers, as in the ad, the thickness of the burgers; the quantity of the additional fillings (such as salad) and the subsequent overall height of the product was considerably less than was shown in the ad.  We considered the visuals used in the ad were likely to mislead viewers as to the size and composition of the product.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications).

Action

The ad must not be shown again in that form until the misleading impression of the size and composition of the product had been corrected.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)