ASA Adjudication on Home Office

Ad

A TV ad, by the Home Office, featured a large group of people drinking at night on the street. Amongst them was a group of girls holding heart-shaped balloons. Two of the balloons floated up into the sky to some scaffolding. One of the girls shouted “Oh, my balloons”. A figure, dressed as a superhero, said “Stand back”. The superhero started climbing the scaffolding; swinging like a gymnast until he reached the top. As he leaned across the edge to grab the balloon, he slipped. The falling figure was no longer a superhero, but a young man who landed on the ground with a thud; his body lay inert in a contorted position. A voiceover stated “Too much alcohol makes you feel invincible when you’re most vulnerable.” On-screen text stated “ALCOHOL. KNOW YOUR LIMITS. knowyourlimits.gov.uk”. The NHS and Home Office logos appeared above the text.

There were two versions of the ad. The first, a 20-second version, 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. The second, a 40-second version, was given a post 7.30pm restriction by the BACC.

Issue

1.  The viewers said the ads were too graphic.  Some reported that they had seen somebody fall from a height and the ads were an upsetting reminder of the incident; one viewer said a family member had died after a fall from a building and the ads had caused his family further distress.

2.  Some viewers believed the ads were scheduled too early; they said their children had seen them and were distressed by them.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

1. United London responded on behalf of the Home Office. They explained that research had been conducted amongst their target audience, 18 to 24-year-olds, and on professionals such as the police and members of the NHS, to test their reaction to the ad before it was broadcast.

They claimed that the target audience believed binge drinking was not a problem and the intention of the ad was to change peoples views on excessive drinking.  They believed that the consequences depicted in the ad were not unrealistic: the scenario of someone falling from a building was the kind of accident that happened on a typical Saturday night.  United London provided statistics from the World Health Organisation, that indicated that one in eight deaths amongst 15 to 29-year-old men in the UK resulted from alcohol. They stated that, according to the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, 70% of all peak-time Accident & Emergency (A&E) admissions were alcohol related and, according to the Transport Research Laboratory for the Department of Transport, 80% of pedestrian deaths on a Friday and Saturday were through excessive drinking. They believed the campaign was an important Government initiative, which stressed the harm caused by excessive drinking and attempted to change peoples behaviour in order to reduce alcohol induced injuries.

United London said their research had found that more benign consequences such as passing out or being sick had been viewed by people as a badge of honour. They believed depicting such consequences in the ad could have had a reverse effect and encouraged heavier drinking.  They said their ad had instead stressed the more serious harm alcohol could cause.

The BACC said that the ad needed to be hard-hitting in order to reach the target audience.

2. United London said that the 20-second ad had not been shown in or around childrens programmes. However, they believed day-time and early evening advertising was crucial if they were to reach the 18 to 24-year-old drinking audience before they left for the pub.

They believed the 20-second ad featured a less graphic fall than the second version; a 40-second ad which was given a post 7.30 pm restriction. They asserted that, nevertheless, blinking and arm movement in both versions made clear that the character was alive.

The BACC added that the 20-second ad was a cut-down version of the post 7.30pm ad and argued that, because there was a shorter falling shot, it was not as hard-hitting as the longer version. They said the 40-second ad was given a timing restriction because the fall sequence was more drawn out and it would not have been suitable to air before 7.30 pm.

They added that the ex-kids timing restriction was in place for the 20-second ad to keep it away from programmes aimed at small children. They explained that that did not mean that the ad was not shown during the day, but instead that it was scheduled between day-time programmes that were not specifically targeted at children. The BACC stated that they had no control over which programmes the ad was shown around. They assumed that, because of the timing restriction, the programmes viewed by the complainants could not have been aimed at younger children.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that some viewers were personally distressed by the ad, especially those who had tragically lost loved ones in similar circumstances. We considered that the ad would be seen by some as hard-hitting and the graphic nature of the man falling to the ground, lying inert, disturbing. However, we noted the ads aim was to educate the public on the harm caused by excessive drinking. We considered that adult viewers were likely to understand the seriousness of the message the ad presented and recognise the need to raise awareness of binge drinking.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious distress to an adult audience, who were unlikely to find the graphic nature of the ad disproportionate to the seriousness of the message.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.4 (Harm and offence - Personal distress) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted that the target audience was 18 to 24-year-olds and that United London wanted to show the ad before 7.30 pm to catch the target audience before they went to the pub.  We recognised the importance of the ad's message and considered that, although the scene of the falling man could distress some young children, an ex-kids restriction was sufficient to prevent those children from seeing the ad.  

We noted that, in the 20-second ad, the scene that showed the man falling was shorter than the fall scene in the post 7.30 pm 40-second ad.  We also noted that the BACC gave the 20-second ad an ex-kids restriction and the 40-second ad a post 7.30 pm restriction.  We nevertheless considered that there was very little difference between the two versions of the ad and that both the 20-second and the 40-second ads were suitable to be given an ex-kids restriction.  

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.3.1 (Children - Mental harm), 7.3.6 (Children - Distress) and 7.3.7 (Children - Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of TV Advertisements 4.2.3 (Particular separation of advertisements and programmes - Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)