ASA Adjudication on Walkers Snack Foods Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Comic Relief, that showed various celebrities dressed as schoolchildren sitting in a classroom. They were all wearing large false ears. A teacher was calling a register and the 'pupils' replied "ear" when their name was called. The only person not wearing false ears was TV presenter Gary Lineker. The teacher called his name and Lineker replied "Here". The teacher said "Take off those ridiculous promotional ears. I will not have such things in my classroom". The teacher grabbed Lineker by the ear and dragged him out of the classroom. The other 'pupils' laughed at him and one said "Ta da Linek-ear". The voice-over said "Visit WalkEARS.com get a free pair of ears and help raise over one million pounds for Comic Relief".

Issue

Five viewers complained that the ad:

1. condoned and was likely to encourage bullying and

2. was offensive to people with big ears and distressing, particularly to people who had been bullied.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd (AMV BBDO) replied on behalf of Walkers. They said they were concerned to hear that the ad may have caused distress; that was never their aim. They believed the ad did not show behaviour that could reasonably be viewed as bullying or that was likely to cause undue distress to viewers with large ears. They said their intention had been to produce a fun ad for Comic Relief, which raised money for good causes.

AMV BBDO said, because the theme of Comic Relief this year was 'big' with Comic Relief producing their biggest ever red noses, they thought it would be fun to give away free big red ears, especially because ears, and Gary Lineker's ears in particular, had often been part of the humour of Walkers ads in the past.

They said the ad was in keeping with the style, tone and humour of the long running Walkers ads featuring Gary Lineker. They said the ad was a light-hearted portrayal of a classroom register scenario, which involved good natured banter between adult celebrity students. They provided figures, which showed the number of 'WalkEARS' requested from the website and the amount of money that had been raised through the campaign. They said they had received positive feedback from consumers in response to the ad.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they had believed the ad was a joke at the expense of Gary Lineker rather than a general negative comment about people with big ears. They said Gary Lineker had a long history of being characterised as having larger than normal ears; a humorous characterisation that he actively encouraged and promoted. They said the ad used ironic humour to promote the sale of Comic Relief ears for charity. The BACC said the schoolchildren laughed at the teacher mistaking Gary Linekers ears for Comic relief ears and Gary Lineker participated in the joke. They considered that Gary Lineker had at no point looked distressed or upset by the situation and that the scene did not therefore depict bullying. They had approved the ad because they considered it did not have the potential to cause serious or widespread offence. They said the ad was light-hearted and comical in tone, which was in keeping with the activities traditionally associated with Comic Relief. They also pointed out that the BCAP Code made allowances for humour as a way of alleviating any potential offence.

Assessment

1. & 2. Not upheld

The ASA recognised that bullying was a sensitive issue but noted the ad was in keeping with previous Walkers campaigns that featured Gary Lineker, some of which had highlighted the size of his ears. We also noted, however, that Gary Lineker was a successful and popular footballer and TV presenter, and to some people, aspirational.

We agreed with the BACC that the ad was likely to be seen as a joke at the expense of Gary Lineker, because he was the only 'pupil' who was not wearing the promotional ears, and that the schoolchildren were laughing because the teacher had made such a silly mistake. We considered that the ad was typical of the comic sketches shown on TV as part of Comic relief and that it was likely to be seen in that context.

We considered that the ad would not generally be seen to contain scenes of bullying and was unlikely to condone or encourage it. We also considered that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or serious distress.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.4 (Personal distress) and 7.3.3 (Bullying) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)