ASA Adjudication on Kellogg Company of GB Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for a cereal bar was set in a doctor's surgery. The ad featured a young man sitting on the edge of an examination table while an older man in a white doctor's coat was writing at a desk. The young man said "I get these weird feelings around eleven and four". The ad then showed the older man examining the younger man, after which he said "Ah, CP's. Cakey-pangs. You need oveny-bakey-cakeyness. I suggest you eat this Nutri-Grain". The older man pulled a Nutri-Grain from his top pocket and handed it to the younger man. The older man then said "Now take off your trousers". The ad then showed the younger man looking alarmed as he said "You're not a real doctor are you?". The older man replied "No. I'm a baker" as he was shown putting a large red oven glove on his left hand. A voice-over said "Mmm. Oveny-bakey-cakeyness". The ad then showed shots of a Nutri-Grain bar as the voice-over said "From the Nutri-Grain Baker".

Issue

1. 42 complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive because it was suggestive of the sexual abuse of younger people by authority figures.

2. Some of the complainants also challenged whether the ad was suitable to be broadcast at times when it could be seen by children.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Kellogg Company of GB Ltd (Kellogg's) said, due to the serious nature of the consumer complaints, they would be taking the ad off air and replacing it with a version that did not contain the line "now take off your trousers".  

1. Kellogg's said the ad was not designed with the intention of, or reference to, any form of abuse, sexual or otherwise. They said the doctor character was a baker and not an authority figure. They explained that the idea was for the baker figure to be so evangelical about Nutri-Grain bars that he would go to extreme lengths to pretend to be a doctor, including using language that would help him maintain his cover, such as "now take off your trousers". Kellogg's argued that the patient in the ad was specifically chosen to be of adult age. They also said the ad was intended to be light-hearted and inoffensive.

Clearcast said they did not think the patient figure in the ad appeared to be underage, or abused by an authority figure. They said they thought the ad was light-hearted and in a surreal vein.

2. Kellogg's explained that the target audience for the ad was 25- to 44-year-olds, and that the ad had been scheduled to reflect that. They submitted a copy of the programming schedule for the ad.

Clearcast said they approved the ad, with the phrase "now drop your trousers", with an 'ex-kids' timing restriction, in order to keep such innuendo away from the youngest viewers. They said that they had informed the agency at script stage that the ad was likely to receive a timing restriction because of that innuendo. Clearcast explained that, because of that restriction, the agency decided to make another version of the ad that did not feature the phrase "now drop your trousers". They said they had approved that version without an 'ex-kids' timing restriction.  

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted Kellogg's argument that the baker figure in the ad was dressed as a doctor because he was evangelical about promoting the product. We also noted that the patient character in the ad, while young, was clearly an adult. We considered that the patient character did not appear to be threatened by the doctor, and that the doctor was presented as a surreal, eccentric figure rather than as a powerful or authoritative figure. Whilst we understood that some viewers might find the ad distasteful, we considered that most viewers would understand that the ad was light-hearted in tone and was attempting to be humorous. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted Kellogg's argument that the ad had been scheduled to reflect their target audience of 25- to 44-year-olds. We also noted that the ad had been given an ex-kids restriction by Clearcast, which meant that it would not be broadcast in or around programmes that were likely to be watched by the youngest and most impressionable viewers. While we understood the concern of some viewers, we considered that the ad was unlikely to cause harm or distress to children and, in view of the scheduling restrictions in place, was unlikely to be seen by children of an inappropriate age.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of TV Advertisements 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)