ASA Adjudication on BGR Bloomer

Ad

Two radio ads for a firm of solicitors:

a. In one ad a man said "I'm the best forklift driver in the warehouse. Well I'm the fastest anyway. In fact I can drive faster backwards than most of the lads can drive forwards without even spilling my tea. In other words I'm an accident waiting to happen and if and when it does you might want to call BGR Bloomer Solicitors. Because if you're injured in an accident at work and it's not your fault you could get compensation. With BGR Bloomer you talk directly to a solicitor and their service is completely free, because they're paid by the insurers of the person responsible. BGR Bloomer Solicitors ... you never know when you might need them".

b. In another ad a woman said "I always use my mirror when I'm driving otherwise I get lipstick everywhere. I'm a busy woman, I'm already late for a meeting and I have to look my best. You might say I'm an accident waiting to happen. And when it does you should call BGR Bloomers Solicitors because if you're injured in a traffic accident and it's not your fault you could get compensation. With BGR Bloomer you talk directly to a solicitor and their service is completely free, because they're paid by the insurers of the person who caused the accident. Because when I pull out from a junction I always look ... fantastic".

Issue

1. Several listeners complained that the ads were misleading, because they implied the people in the ad would be able to get compensation if they were injured.

2. Thirteen listeners complained that the ads condoned and trivialised dangerous behaviour, because the ad implied that it was acceptable for people to be reckless, as their victims would be able to claim compensation.

3. Six listeners complained that the ads were offensive, because dangerous behaviour was portrayed as humorous.

4. Three listeners also complained that the ads were harmful, because they encouraged and condoned a compensation culture.

BCAP Radio Code

Response

1. BGR Bloomers agency, Radioville, said the ads were based on the idea that the narrator of the ad was "an accident waiting to happen". They said the ads suggested that an encounter with either character might result in an accident and it was obvious from the ad that the accident was the fault of the narrator. They said BGR Bloomer was presented as the company the listener could choose to go to for help if they suffered that kind of accident. They said the narrators were therefore not the people who might need to claim compensation; they were the people who might cause an accident. They pointed out that the narrators clearly stated "if you have an accident thats not your fault".

The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) said the ad did not suggest that the speakers were in a position to make a claim.

GCap, who responded on behalf of Capital Gold and Classic FM, pointed out that both ads clearly stated "if you're injured in an accident at work and its not your fault you could get compensation". Virgin Radio said they had not considered the irresponsible speakers in the ads to be the people that could claim compensation, because they were the people that were likely to cause accidents.

2. Radioville said there was nothing in the ad to suggest that the narrators behaviour was being condoned. The listener was not encouraged to identify with the narrators or be sympathetic towards them; in fact the opposite was true. They said the narrators made clear that the insurers of the people who caused an accident had to pay compensation; they believed that did not condone or encourage the behaviour. The dangerous behaviour was not rewarded; rather the offender was depicted as foolish and unpleasant.

The RACC said the use of humour in the ads served to describe the narrators as careless characters and to distance the listener from them; it was not used to celebrate or condone their behaviour.

GCap said they considered the ads warned listeners about the dangerous behaviour of the narrators. Virgin Radio said they considered that the ads did not condone dangerous behaviour but instead penalised it, because the ad stated that the insurers of the person who caused the accident had to pay compensation.

3. Radioville said humour was used in the ads not only to hold the listener's attention but also to make the narrator dislikeable as they described their own careless behaviour. They said the humour came from the recognition of the type of person who was a nuisance and clearly behaving unacceptably; the humour was not at the expense of the victim. They pointed out that neither a victim nor an accident featured in the ad, merely the suggestion that accidents could be caused by the type of behaviour described.

The RACC repeated their argument that the use of humour in the ads served to describe the characters and to distance the listener from them.

GCap said they had not considered that the ads portrayed the situations as intentionally humorous, rather the narrators were laughing off their bad habits. Virgin Radio said they considered that the ads did not portray dangerous behaviour as intentionally humorous; the humour was instead used to exaggerate the person who caused the accident with their careless behaviour and make them dislikeable.

4. Radioville said the complaint appeared to be directed at the product itself, rather than the content of the ad. They said that to condone a compensation culture would involve the suggestion that an accident was a good thing, because it allowed compensation to be claimed. They said there was no such suggestion in the ads.

The RACC believed the ads did not encourage a compensation culture, but offered a useful service to people who had been victims of other peoples' irresponsibility.

GCap did not comment on this point. Virgin Radio said the ads did not suggest that accidents were a good thing and they therefore considered that they did not encourage a compensation culture.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the ads were based on the idea that the narrator was an "accident waiting to happen" and listeners should contact BGR Bloomer if they were involved in an accident that was not their fault. We noted the complainants had interpreted the ads to mean that the narrators of the ads would be able to claim compensation if they caused an accident. However, we noted both ads stated "If youre injured in an accident thats not your fault you could get compensation" and did not state that the narrator would contact a solicitor. We considered that the vast majority of listeners would recognise that the people in the ads were at fault and concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2 rule 3 (Misleadingness) but did not find them in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the narrators behaviour was portrayed in a light-hearted way. However, we considered that most listeners were likely to understand that the behaviour being described was intended to be interpreted as unacceptable and the people were intended to be disliked. We considered that listeners were unlikely to interpret the ads as condoning the narrators behaviour but merely highlighting a service available to them if they suffered as the result of such behaviour. We concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead and did not encourage or condone harmful behaviour.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2 rule 3 (Misleadingness) and rule 10 (Harm) but did not find them in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted that several listeners, some of whom had suffered as a result of accidents, found the use of humour in the ads offensive, because dangerous behaviour was referred to in a light-hearted way. We considered, however, that most listeners were likely to understand that the humour had partly been intended to make the narrators dislikeable, because of their careless and dangerous behaviour. We noted the ads did not describe an actual accident and did not feature the victim of an accident. We concluded that the ads were unlikely to offend most listeners.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2 rule 9 (Good taste, decency and offence to public feeling) but did not find them in breach.

4. Not upheld

We noted the ads did not encourage listeners to make spurious or unnecessary claims and made clear that listeners could claim compensation only if the accident was not their fault. We noted the ads did not suggest that the people in the ads would be able to claim compensation or suggest that the behaviour in the ads was acceptable. We considered listeners were likely to understand that the ads merely highlighted the availability of BGR Bloomers service and we concluded that they did not breach the Code.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2 rule 10 (Harm) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)