ASA Adjudication on Department of Health

Ad

a. A cinema and TV ad, showed various scenes of children copying their parents doing activities such as baking, DIY and exercising, accompanied by the music "I wanna be like you" from the Disney cartoon 'The Jungle Book'. The last scene showed a mother smoking, which was then copied by her young daughter, using a crayon. The voice-over said "If you smoke, your children are more likely to smoke. Smoking. Don't keep it in the family".

b. A TV ad, showed scenes of adults surreptitiously smoking outside, hidden behind walls or spied through windows; it showed cigarette butts thrown in a plant pot and a child's truck. The accompanying music was a Shirley Temple song, with the repeated lyric "I like what you like''. The last scene showed a little boy looking at himself in the mirror and mimicking someone smoking, using a crayon. The voice-over said "What you do, your children do." Smoking. Don't keep it in the family. For help stopping call xxxx xx xx xx."

Issue

1. 200 viewers challenged whether the TV ads were harmful because they believed young children would not understand the message and the depiction of the children smoking could encourage other children to smoke.

2.  Three viewers thought the cinema ad was unsuitable to be shown before U and PG-rated children's films.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

The Department of Health (DH) said the ads were based on evidence suggesting that children who lived in smoking households were three times more likely to become smokers and that the aim of the ads was to motivate smokers to give up, by publicly highlighting that their actions would not go unnoticed by children.  They said the ads were part of a multimedia campaign about the dangers of children taking up smoking.  They stated they had received 130,000 responses to the campaign via the Quit Smoking helpline and website and said they had carried out qualitative research during the campaign, which showed a powerful and emotional positive response to the ad, particularly from smokers with young families, for whom the ad was directly relevant.

They said the ads used the insight that young children under 10 years of age directly mimicked the behaviour of their parents and that their communications strategy was therefore designed to target parents who smoke, whilst they were with their children, in order to confront parents with their behaviour and make them consider the effect smoking has on their family and loved ones. They stressed they had not intended to target children in general, or the children of smokers, directly.  They said the 'shared family viewing' strategy included an ex-kids restriction for TV, to prevent the ad being screened during programming viewed by children on their own (and on child specific networks).

They maintained that ad (a) did not intend to glamorise or encourage smoking; the child had picked up a crayon to smoke, not a cigarette, and they had limited the shots of smokers.  They pointed out that there was a clear distinction in tone between the happy family scenes, set to music, and the serious final smoking scene, with a voice-over and no music.  They said the sudden shift in mood at the end reinforced the seriousness of the message and made for uncomfortable viewing.  They maintained that even young children would notice the music had ended.

The DH said the atmosphere of ad (b) was intended to be eerie and unpleasant and was deliberately shot from a child's perspective to emphasise that smokers were being observed; highlighting the surreptitious nature of smoking around children.  They stated that the final scene clearly showed a child smoking a crayon.  They had intended to show parents that their smoking habit did not go unnoticed, to reinforce the message that parents' behaviour had an impact on their children.  They believed that, while the ad showed parents that children were impressionable, they did not feel that it specifically encouraged children to smoke.

Clearcast noted the controversial nature of the ads but felt that a certain leniency was often appropriate for a government campaign in order to maximise the impact of the positive anti-smoking message.  Their consultant agreed that the evidence showed a correlation between parents who were smokers and their children becoming smokers and they felt that that was an important message to tell.  Clearcast acknowledged the potential problem of featuring a child smoking, but felt it was clear that the child was smoking a crayon - an item most young children would recognise.  They gave the ads an ex-kids restriction because they considered the ads were inappropriate for children under eight years.  They considered that children older than eight years would understand the message and felt the timing restrictions struck the correct balance between protecting small children and reaching a wide circulation with an important message.

The DH pointed out that the cinema ad had also been classified with a U rating by the Cinema Advertising Association before being broadcast.  They said that data from Film Audience Measurement and Evaluation (FAME) for 2007 showed that fewer than 1% of all U and PG rated films were viewed by under 10s on their own, and that only 17.5% of total admissions to U and PG rated films were under 10s.  On the basis of this data, and in accordance with their 'shared family viewing' strategy, they bought space in the ad reel of a number of U and PG rated films.  

The Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) pointed out that the cinema ad did not show a child smoking, but a child using a crayon to mime the actions of the parent smoking, and that this image came as the finale to a series of images of young children imitating various parental actions.  They said that, when approving the ad and considering its compliance with the CAP Codes, the CAA Panel felt the approach was entirely responsible, but would not have felt that way if the child had been shown smoking.  They pointed out a child would see an adult smoking and a child sucking a pencil in the ad.  They felt that, if the complainants had concluded that the ad was irresponsible because children watching the ad would then imitate the actions of the adults, then it must follow that the children would also wish to imitate the other activities depicted in the ad.  They did not believe that showing a child imitating the actions of smoking, in the context of general imitations, would be likely to start a child smoking.

They said the CAA Panel thought the ad was aimed particularly at parents of young children and was designed to alert those adults to the fact that their actions were likely to be seen as imitable and pleasurable by their children.  They said that cinema attendance figures suggested that, in order to reach the parents of young children, any health ad in the cinema should be seen with U and PG films, and U and PG films were those most likely to be seen when children were with their parents.  They added that the younger the child, the more likely it was the parent or guardian would be present and felt that the adult would therefore be in a position to explain the meaning of the ad to a young child in the unlikely case of confusion or upset.  They felt the ad was precisely aimed at the parents of young children and to prevent it being shown with U and PG films would have removed it from its target audience.  They felt an ad promoting responsible behaviour by the parents of young children should only be excluded from screening with U and PG films if it contained material likely to be of positive harm to a child.  While they were aware that the ad might upset some adults, they did not believe this ad was harmful to children.  They felt that any offence or upset caused to those adults was justified by the greater good the ad sought to promote.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the TV ads were not targeted at children, but that the advertisers had intended that parents see the ads while they were with their children and that Clearcast had ensured an ex-kids scheduling restriction.  We acknowledged that Clearcast believed the TV ads were appropriate for children over eight years old.  However, we noted from some of the complaints we had received that, in spite of the ex-kids scheduling, some children younger than eight might see the TV ads.  Nevertheless, we considered that, when watching the TV ads, adults would be able to explain the dangers and harmful effects of smoking to children and considered that the ex-kids scheduling was appropriate.  We noted that the TV ads recognised that children imitated the actions they saw around them; however, we considered the advertisers had used that positively, to persuade adults who smoked to consider the effect this had on their children and that the TV ads would have an even greater impact when seen by smoking parents in the presence of their children.

We further acknowledged that some young children might imitate the action they had seen on screen and that the image of children seen imitating smoking could be a shocking image to some viewers.  However, we noted that the children featured in the ads were not themselves smoking, but imitating the action of smoking, by putting a crayon to their mouth.  We considered younger children would recognise the crayon as a familiar object and would not necessarily understand the significance of the action they were copying.  On this basis, we did not consider that seeing the ads was likely to be a determining factor in children becoming smokers in the future.  

Because the TV ads conveyed an important health message which was particularly relevant to parents who smoked and would have a positive impact in persuading parents to give up smoking, we did not consider the ads were harmful or likely to encourage children to smoke.

We investigated the TV ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.7 (Health and Safety), 7.4.2 and 7.4.7 (Children) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the cinema ad was not targeted at children, but that the advertisers had intended that parents see the ads while they were with their children. We noted that younger children were likely to see the cinema ad before a U or PG rated children's film.  However, we considered it likely that younger children would see the ads in the presence of their parents and considered that the anti-smoking message would have an even greater impact when seen by smoking parents in the presence of their children.

Because the cinema ad conveyed an important health message which was particularly relevant to parents who smoked and who also had young children it would have a positive impact in persuading them to give up smoking. Also, because scheduling the ads before U and PG rated films was likely to increase exposure of the ad to the relevant target audience, we did not consider the ads were harmful or likely to encourage children to smoke and we did not consider it unsuitable to show the cinema ad before a U or PG rated film.

We investigated the cinema ad investigated under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles) and 47.2 (Children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)