ASA Adjudication on Brooke Hospital for Animals

Ad

A TV ad, for Brooke Hospital for Animals (Brooke), featured on-screen text that stated "healthy working animals for the world's poorest communities since 1934 the Brooke has worked to save horses and donkeys". The ad featured a donkey carrying a heavy load of bricks on its back. The voice-over stated "Yesterday, today, tomorrow, every day the same I work until I can't take another step. So hot, so tired, I need water, shade, rest, it hurts. My back, my feet, but I'm not allowed to stop. When the load is too heavy, I fall, but I keep trying." A donkey was shown collapsed on the ground with a heavy load on its back. The voice-over continued "Today a friend found me. She came to help me, she stroked my face and let me rest in the shade, she let me drink, she nursed my back. My friend is from the Brooke, she taught my poor owner to care for me, so my life can be better for good. I was lucky, some donkeys don't have a friend to save them. Sometimes when they fall, they never get up." Another image of a donkey collapsed on the ground with its load still on its back was shown. "Please, help the Brooke care for donkeys like me. Just £3 a month or anything you can give will do so much. Don't turn away, we desperately need friends like you so the Brooke can save us. Please help, text donkey to … thank you." On-screen text during the ad stated "no animals were harmed in the making of this appeal".

Issue

Four complainants, whose children were aged between four and six years old and saw the ad during children's programming, challenged whether the ad was appropriate for broadcast at these times because it could upset and distress children.  

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Brooke said the ad had been on air since August 2006.  They said their target audience was similar to their donor profile: mainly females aged over 35 years. They explained that the ad was shown mainly during adult daytime programming but had also been shown as a test during family programming on a number of occasions since December 2007, although the testing was not as successful attracting donations as they had hoped and they had no plans to show the ad again during those times.  

Brooke said the ad was a true reflection of a typical day's work for animals in India and their work to help those animals and the communities who relied on them.  They explained that TV advertising was important as it allowed them to attract new donors which, in turn, would help them achieve their priority of alleviating and preventing animal suffering.  They said the TV ad had helped them find hundreds of new supporters for their work.  Brooke nevertheless expressed regret that younger children had been distressed by the ad.  

Clearcast said another version of the ad was first shown in 2006 with an 'ex-kids' restriction to ensure that it was not shown during programmes made for or specifically targeted at children.  That ad featured scenes showing more explicit mistreatment of the donkey and scenes of the donkey collapsing.  Clearcast felt, with those scenes removed, the ad did not require a timing restriction and said that decision was in keeping with their position for all ads for animal charities where there were references to mistreatment of animals but where the visuals stopped short of showing it in detail.  

ITV said they were always mindful of the need to protect children from the potentially harmful effects of unsuitable advertising.  They pointed out that the visuals did not reveal specific mistreatment of animals.  They added that the context of the ad was the work of a charitable organisation involved in the protection of animals from ill-treatment in the poorest parts of the world.  ITV said they therefore viewed the ad, not only to review the potential for harm, but also in the charitable context the ad was intended to promote.  In the absence of an 'ex kids' restriction and in the absence of any apparent mistreatment of the animals, they decided not to exclude the ad from CITV.    

Five said they scheduled the ad to appear on 'Milkshake' after 9.30 am because they considered the content was inappropriate to be shown before that time. They said, had Clearcast given the ad an 'ex-kids' restriction, they would have adhered to it.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the comments from Brooke, Clearcast, ITV and Five.  We noted three young children had been upset or distressed by the ad and one parent considered that the ad could upset or distress young children although they did not report that their child had been affected.

Although we were concerned that some children had been distressed by the content of the ad, we nevertheless noted it did not feature graphic scenes of mistreatment.  We considered the voice-over, portrayed as that of the donkey telling its story, was likely to be more upsetting than the visuals but acknowledged that some children would be sensitive to the subject of animals being mistreated however it was portrayed.  We considered that the ad conveyed a positive message about the work of the charity: that Brooke would work with donkey owners to educate them about how to look after their animals properly.  On balance, we concluded that a scheduling restriction in order to direct it away from all children was not warranted and the ad had been scheduled appropriately.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.4.1 (Harm and distress), 7.4.6 (Distress) and 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of TV Advertisements rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)