ASA Adjudication on SC Johnson Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for a toilet cleaner showed an animated duck holding a hollow tube to its eye and looking down it. The voice-over stated "there's nothing else like it, and it's got the germ-ridden rim block cage in its sights. Introducing new fresh discs from Duck ... ". The duck assembled the disc dispenser as the voice-over stated "click the barrel into the holder, flick the top off and you're ready for action ... ".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ad was unsuitable to be seen by children because it may encourage them to copy the duck's actions and put a potentially dangerous product to their eye.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

S C Johnson Ltd (SC Johnson) said that under the laws governing this type of product Duck Fresh Discs were not classified as dangerous. They also said they were not classified as "irritant to eyes", and although they acknowledged that an incident of the type described by the complainant would be unpleasant, they pointed out that it would not be catastrophic. They said the ad had been broadcast in nine European countries and despite the commercial success of the product there had been no reported incident of the type described by the complainant. They said that when the duck looked through the applicator it contained no product and was simply a plastic tube, they said if the applicator was loaded with the product then it couldn't be looked through and the attraction of performing that action was removed. They said the label stated "Keep out of reach of children and pets", meaning that responsible parents would keep it out of children's reach and prevent any such incident occurring.

Clearcast said they did not consider the commercial contained behaviour which could lead children to be harmed. They said the animated duck was a well established character that had been used to promote a variety of toilet products without complaint.  They said the scene was animated and not live action and therefore less likely to be copied. However, they pointed out that no harm would come from a child looking through the hollow tube, and there was clearly no product in it because the duck's eye was visible. They said that once the applicator and product were fitted together it was difficult to pull apart and was unlikely to appeal to a child because it could not be used as a telescope. They also pointed out that even if a child did emulate the action with the ready to use applicator in the tube they were unlikely to come to serious harm.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted Clearcast and SC Johnson's comments. Although we considered a child might, in natural play, pick up a cylindrical object and look through it, we accepted that the product was not classified as "irritant to eyes" and the applicator was empty and did not contain the product when the duck looked through it. Furthermore, we considered parents would understand the necessity of storing cleaning products out of children's reach. We therefore concluded the ad did not encourage harmful emulation.

We investigated the ad under CAP (TV) Advertising Standards Code rules 6.7 (Health and Safety), 7.4.2 and 7.4.7 (Physical harm) and TV Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)