ASA Adjudication on Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for Clearasil showed a girl walking past two teenage boys. As she passed she said “hi” to one of them. The boy replied and hid his face behind his hair. When questioned by his friend he said “Hiding this, aren’t I?” and pointed to a spot on his cheek. His friend replied “It’s three days 'til the party! I know what you want.” The next scene showed the boy washing his face with Clearasil. The following scene was subtitled “3 days later” and the boy was spot-free. He got on a skateboard, said to his friend “Here goes” and launched himself at a group of girls, including the girl who had spoken to him previously. She looked shocked as the boy crashed into her, knocking her to the ground. The boy then kissed her. A voice-over and text stated “Clear Skin Confidence”.

Issue

Four viewers complained that it was offensive and inappropriate to show a boy falling on top of a girl and kissing her.  They felt that the ad condoned sexual violence.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Reckitt Benckiser (Reckitt) said it was important to take into account that the action took place in a public area.  They argued that the boy was clearly known to the girl, and reference was made to a party which they all planned to attend.  They maintained that, in the final scene, the boy skated towards the group of girls and accidentally collided with the girl.  Reckitt argued that during the encounter there was no look of concern on the girl's face, giving a clear indication that she had no objection to any part of the scene.  They said she was portrayed neither as being at risk of harm nor as resisting, and that the scene would not normally be considered to be violent.  They therefore disputed that the ad depicted sexual violence.  They said they had received no complaints direct, which suggested that the ad had not caused widespread offence or harm.

Clearcast agreed with Reckitt that the boy and girl clearly knew each other and that the way she said "hi" and smiled at him showed that she was attracted to him.  They pointed out that the dialogue established that the two were due to see each other at a party in three days, again cementing the fact that they knew each other and shared a mutual attraction.  They said, having regained some confidence since treating his spot, the boy was confident enough to engineer a situation where he could show the girl he was interested in her.  Clearcast conceded that the situation was clumsy but argued that it was an innocent, obviously engineered way for a shy teenage boy to overcome his embarrassment.  They maintained that the girl was not resistant and that, from her reaction in the visuals and her laughter during the final shot of a pack of Clearasil, she was happy to be kissed and was a willing participant.

Clearcast said they were very aware that people could be offended by overly aggressive behaviour, especially in a sexual context, but argued that it was clearly an innocent situation that featured awkward teenagers struggling to find a way to act on their mutual attraction.  They believed they were right to approve the ad without a scheduling restriction, and agreed with Reckitt that the small number of complaints showed that the vast majority of viewers were not offended by it.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted viewers' concern that the portrayal of the girl being knocked to the ground and then kissed could be seen as a deliberate violent act against her will.  We agreed that, because the boy said "here goes" before launching his skateboard toward the group of girls, the collision appeared to be premeditated rather than accidental.  We noted, however, the ad showed a prior exchange between the couple that indicated that there was a mutual attraction.  Although the girl initially appeared surprised, we considered that she did not seem to be frightened or repulsed.  We noted she appeared to return the boy's kiss and therefore considered that she was not an unwilling participant.  We also noted the ad ended with a voice-over of female laughter.  We considered that the overall impression was of an awkward "boy meets girl" scenario rather than a display of violence or aggressive intent.  We concluded that, although its approach would be seen by some as unconventional, the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to be seen as condoning or encouraging sexual violence.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code Rule 6.1 (Offence) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)