ASA Adjudication on Beverage Brands (UK) Ltd

Ad

A TV and cinema ad, for WKD, featured two men doing D.I.Y in a house. One man asked his friend to pass him a drill from the floor. The friend bent down, picked up the cordless drill and assumed the actions of a robot using the sound from the drill as the sound the mechanical parts of a robot might make. The first man was not impressed and asked for it again. The friend walked towards him, like a robot, and pretended to hand over the drill but pulled away as the man reached for it. The man who had asked for the drill had a slight smile on his face. The end sequence cut to the two friends, in a bar, with two other men. The man who had been acting like a robot leaned over the bar table and reached for a bottle of WKD. The ad froze and the strap-line "Have you got a WKD side? drinkaware.co.uk" appeared.

Issue

1. Four complainants believed it was dangerous to link alcohol with power tools;

2. One complainant believed the ad could encourage young children to mimic the actions using a power drill and

3. One complainant believed the ad showed an unsafe practice, because the men were using a drill without wearing eye protection.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

Response

WKD commented on the complaints about the cinema and TV ads. The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) responded to the complaints about the TV ad and the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) commented on the cinema ad.

1. WKD explained that the robotic scene did not depict the consumption of alcohol. Because the two friends' actions were spontaneous but deliberate and controlled, they said the ad implied they were not working under the influence of alcohol. They said there was no sign of alcohol in the robotic scenario and, when viewers saw alcohol in the end frame, it was in a completely different location: a bar.

The BACC did not believe the action in the ad was reckless. They said that, throughout the ad, the action was slow, moderate and controlled. They stated that, during the drill sequence, there were no drinks in the room, nor were the characters shown drinking. They said there was a distinct separation between the day's activity and the bar scene, which clearly portrayed the end of a day's work. They reiterated that, throughout the ad, it was clear that there was no link between the use of power tools and the consumption of alcohol.

The CAA explained that the ad had been approved by their Copy Panel under the alcohol codes. They explained that, during the Panel's discussion, concern had been expressed that the robotic action could have been considered to be juvenile behaviour. However, they had agreed that the miming and teasing in the ad was not, in reality, the prerogative of teenagers, nor was it reflective of an irresponsible attitude: they added that the man had ceased his robotic actions before he came close to his friend and handed over the drill. Because the friend took the drill with a knowing smile, they believed he had recognised his companion's familiar teasing attitude.

2. WKD said the ad was not addressed to, targeted at or featured children, and did not believe it would encourage children to mimic the action, given that it took place in a work environment. They stated that they would not expect a child to be in possession of any kind of power tool.

With regards to the cinema ad, they explained that the CAA Alcohol Panel would estimate what the typical audience would be for a new film. They said they could only buy into films that were likely to have over 75% of over 18 year olds in the audience. They highlighted that that was not determined by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) certificate of the film. The ad appeared during the trailers of films with 12A, 15 and 18 certificates.

The BACC explained that the TV ad had received a DC timing restriction, which was applied to alcohol ads and ensured that it was not transmitted in, or adjacent to, children's programmes, religious programmes or programmes commissioned for, principally directed at, or likely to appeal particularly to, audiences below the age of 18. They considered that the restriction was sufficient to avoid encouraging children to 'play' with power tools.

The CAA said the adults in the ad were clearly over the age of 25.

They stated that the alcohol exhibition restriction under which the ad was shown did not allow alcohol ads to be shown with any film likely to achieve an average audience profile of 25% or more under 18 year olds. They explained that, working from pre-released publicity together with film profiles underwritten by independent research, the CAA Alcohol Panel would deem forthcoming films as either proscribed or non-proscribed for carrying alcohol ads. They said their decision might not reflect the BBFC certificate: a film with a U certificate, for example, might be aimed at and appeal overwhelmingly to an adult audience and therefore be non-proscribed and able to carry alcohol ads, whereas a film with a PG certificate might be proscribed and therefore unable to carry alcohol ads. They explained that all 15 and 18 certified films could carry alcohol ads.

3. WKD explained that they were careful to ensure that the scenario in the ad was not unsafe. They said the man was using a battery operated drill with a screwdriver part, as opposed to a drill part, in order to tighten screws on a shelf. Because the action took place in the air and not into material, they considered there was no possibility of anything harming his eyes. They added that, whilst the man was moving across the room, there was no one near him and the ad ended before his friend used the tool. They therefore believed eye protection was not needed.

The BACC considered that it was not always necessary to show characters wearing eye protection when an ad featured a drill. Because no actual drilling took place, they believed there was no danger of any dust or particles entering the eyes. They said the action shown was clearly moderate and safely executed.

The CAA believed that, because the ad showed the man drilling in air only and ended before the friend used the tool, to show the men without eye protection was not irresponsible.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that there was a clear separation between the two scenes in the ad. We noted the drill scenario did not show any of the characters drinking alcohol and considered that it did not give the impression that they were working under the influence of alcohol. We also noted a bottle of WKD, which was shown only in the final bar scene, was the only reference to alcohol in the ad. Because no alcohol was featured in the work environment, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to be seen as dangerously or irresponsibly linking alcohol and power tools.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 56.14 (Alcoholic drinks) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 11.8.1 (h) (Alcoholic drinks - Rules which apply to all advertising) and 11.8.2 (d) (Alcoholic drinks - Additional rules for alcohol advertisements) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We acknowledged that the ad was not targeted at children. We noted the BACC's restriction that the ad should not be transmitted in, or adjacent to, children's programmes or programmes targeted at, or likely to appeal to, viewers under the age of 18. We also noted, at cinemas, the ad was shown only in trailers for films where the majority of the audience was over 18. We considered that for a child to be in possession of a drill without adult supervision was unlikely, hence making it difficult for them to emulate the robotic actions and, therefore, unlikely to cause them physical harm. We noted we had received no reports that children had attempted to copy the action. We concluded that the restrictions applied to the ads were sufficient to avoid encouraging young children to copy the actions using a power drill.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.7 (Health and safety) and 7.3.2 (Children - Physical harm) and CAP Code clause 10.1 (Safety) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted the man in the ad was shown drilling into air, not into material. Because no actual drilling into a surface took place, we considered that there was no danger of particles entering the man's eyes and concluded that to show the men without eye protection would not encourage unsafe practice.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.7 (Health and safety) and CAP Code clause 10.1 (Safety) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)