ASA Adjudication on LG Electronics UK Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for the LG Arena KM900 phone, showed a man using the phone to access the Internet, use Google maps and watch a video called "Boogie Baby". On-screen text stated "Simulated features" as the ad showed close-ups of T-shirts with cartoon-like graphics on them.

Issue

One viewer thought the ad showed entertainment applications and misleadingly implied they were available on the phone or could be downloaded to it.  She bought the phone but said she then found out that the pre-loaded applications at the time of purchase were the only ones available, and there was no facility for downloading new ones.

BCAP TV Code

Response

LG Electronics (LGE) said the man in the ad chose to watch the "Boogie Baby" video on his phone.  That particular video was filmed by LGE and was an example of how a video could be played on the handset.  They stated that videos could be downloaded to the phone from a PC or the Internet, or could be recorded with the camcorder function.  When the ad was first broadcast in April 2009, it was not possible for viewers to view or download the "Boogie Baby" video, because it was not in the public domain.  However, the full video was made available via a video sharing website on 25 June 2009, which meant owners of the LG Arena KM900 could watch the full video on the Internet from that date.

LGE said the ad also showed the user accessing the Internet and viewing Google maps, and flicking through photos using the photo gallery function.  Finally the man answered a phone call.  They explained that the on-screen text "Simulated features" did not refer to the "Boogie Baby" video but to the capabilities of the photo gallery browsing facility; the man was flicking through similar photos extremely quickly, giving the impression of moving images.  The text appeared on-screen at the same time as the man flicked through the photos.

LGE believed the ad was not misleading, because all the functions it demonstrated - video player, web browser, photo gallery and call answer - represented normal use of the handset and were not referred to in the ad as 'applications'.  They also argued that any important limitations were made clear in on-screen text.

Clearcast endorsed LGE's response.  They said every function shown in the ad came with the phone and the ad did not contain a direct or indirect claim that the handset was capable of downloading further functions or applications; it was simply an accurate demonstration of the phone's features.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that the ad did not show entertainment applications, but instead demonstrated the phone's functions, including the ability to browse the Internet, watch videos and view photos.

We considered that the photo gallery demonstration might be confusing to some viewers, because the ad did not signpost the fact that the man had accessed the photo gallery function and the photos shown, which consisted of close-ups of T-shirts with cartoon-like graphics on them, were not representative of photos consumers would normally take.  We considered it was possible that, despite the on-screen text "Simulated features", viewers might not realise that the ad was showing similar photos being viewed very quickly, and some viewers might mistakenly infer that the ad was showing an entertainment application or game.  Nevertheless, we considered that, ultimately, viewers were unlikely to be misled by this particular feature, because it was possible to browse stored photos on the phone very quickly, and that was what the ad was demonstrating.

We noted a significant proportion of the ad was devoted to playing the "Boogie Baby" video and the man selected it from the 'Multimedia' screen on his handset.  However, we considered viewers were likely to infer that the ad was merely demonstrating how the phone could play videos; the "Boogie Baby" was no more than an example of a video, and viewers would not expect it to come as standard on the phone or to be in the public domain.

Because the functions demonstrated in the ad represented what the phone could do, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.2 (Implications) and 5.2.3 (Qualifications) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)