ASA Adjudication on DFS Furniture Company plc
DFS Furniture Company plc
1 Rockingham Way
Redhouse Interchange
Adwick-le-Street
Doncaster
South Yorkshire
DN6 7NA
Date:
1 August 2007
Media:
Television
Sector:
Household
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
30200
Ad
A TV ad, for a DFS sofa promotion, showed various scenes of people reading, chatting, sleeping or eating on sofas. The accompanying voice-over stated "a sofa's not just a sofa, it's where you have some of your most important conversations … somewhere to chill out that helps turn your house into your home, but don't think you need to spend a lot, go to DFS where a sofa is not just a sofa …". One of the scenes featured showed a young boy with his mouth open, leaning backwards on the sofa, and shaking a piggy bank upside down above his head.
Issue
A viewer, whose son who had nearly choked on a coin by performing a similar action, complained that the depiction of the young boy shaking the piggy bank with the coin slot towards his face was dangerous and could be emulated by children.
BCAP TV Code
Response
DFS apologised for any distress caused to the viewer, but said there was no potential risk of the child in the ad choking. They explained that the child had had his mouth closed and was under the supervision of his parents at all times. They also explained that the slot of the piggy bank was specifically designed to prevent coins from falling out of it.
The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) endorsed the comments of DFS. They said they sympathised with the viewer, but they believed the ad was acceptable because the child in the ad was in no danger of choking and because drawing a parallel between the viewer's experience and the ad was going too far.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the child's mouth was closed when he put his head back to shake the piggy bank and considered that he was not in danger of choking should any coins have fallen out. We also noted the ad featured mainly adults and activities that would not be of interest to young children. Although we noted the viewer's concerns, we considered that the ad was not intriguing or likely to appeal directly to young children and concluded that the ad was unlikely to result in physical harm to children caused by emulation.
We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 7.4.2 (Children - Physical Harm), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)