ASA Adjudication on Aldi Stores Ltd

Aldi Stores Ltd

Holly Lane
Atherstone
Warwickshire
CV9 2SQ

Date:

7 September 2011

Media:

Television

Sector:

Retail

Number of complaints:

Complaint Ref:

A11-160071

A TV ad, for a supermarket, viewed in May 2011. The ad featured a woman sitting at a table. The woman held a pack of PG Tips tea bags and stated "I buy this tea for my husband. He likes tea ... ". The woman then held a pack of Aldi tea bags and stated "He also likes this one". She then stated "I don't like tea. I like gin." and picked up a glass and drank from it. On-screen text stated "Aldi. Like brands. Only cheaper".

Issue

1. Fifteen complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because they believed it encouraged irresponsible drinking and implied that gin was a suitable substitute for non-alcoholic drinks.

2. Nine complainants, including several doctors, challenged whether the ad was offensive, because they believed that the ad made light of alcoholism.

3. Eight complainants objected that the ad was inappropriate for broadcast during the day.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

1.219.24.14.2

BCAP Code

32.1

Response

Aldi stated that they did not intend for the ad to encourage the misuse or over consumption of alcohol. They further explained that they intended the ad to be humorous.

Aldi stated that the ad was not for alcohol, but tea and suggested that the fact that alcohol was referred to within the advert did not encourage or condone irresponsible drinking. They also said the ad was not intended to imply that gin was a suitable substitute for non-alcoholic drinks such as tea. They stated that tea was consumed in varying quantities at various times of the day, based on the consumer’s personal preferences. They stated that this was also the case for alcoholic beverages.

Aldi believed that the appearance of a lady who stated liking gin did not, of itself, mean that she was an alcoholic. They suggested that an ad featuring an older person consuming alcohol would deglamourise the attraction of alcohol to persons under 18 years of age.

Aldi explained that the script for the ad was approved by Clearcast without any scheduling restrictions.

Clearcast believed that the ad in question was humorous and portrayed one woman’s personal preference for gin over tea. They said that many people did not like tea. They believed that the ad did not suggest that gin was a suitable substitute for non-alcoholic drinks. They also said that there was no indication that the lady would drink as much gin as her husband drank tea, or that her husband drank a large amount of tea. They further stated that there was no indication that the woman was intoxicated or a heavy drinker, and also that drinking a gin and tonic at home did not constitute alcoholism.

Clearcast said that the ad was for tea and that gin was peripheral to the sales message. They further said that it was acceptable to show adults drinking responsibly in an ad, regardless of whether the ad was for alcohol or not.

Assessment

1. & 2. Not upheld

The ASA considered that the woman in the ad did not appear to be intoxicated. We also considered that there was no suggestion that the woman was an alcoholic. In that context, we considered that the ad did not imply that gin was a suitable alternative to tea, or that gin should be consumed in significant quantities, but stated a single adult’s preference for gin over tea.

We acknowledged that some viewers might find the ad distasteful, but considered that it was likely to be seen as a humorous depiction of one woman’s preference for gin over tea. We concluded that it did not encourage irresponsible drinking or make light of alcoholism. On that basis, we concluded that the ad did not breach the Code.

On these points, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.2 (Compliance), 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and offence) and 19.2 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted that a scheduling restriction had not been applied to the ad. We also noted that the ad featured an elderly woman who stated her personal preference for gin over tea. As such, we considered that the ad did not glamorise the consumption of alcohol and was unlikely to hold a strong appeal to under 18s. Since the ad was unlikely to cause harm to children, we considered that the ad was scheduled appropriately and did not require a restriction.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.2 (Compliance), 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and offence), 19.2 (Alcohol) and 32.1 (Scheduling) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Previous Next