ASA Adjudication on Heineken UK Ltd
Heineken UK Ltd
2–4 Broad Park
South Gyle Broadway
Edinburgh
EH12 9JZ
Date:
21 September 2011
Media:
Television
Sector:
Alcohol
Number of complaints:
4
Agency:
Wieden & Kennedy UK Ltd
Complaint Ref:
A11-155087
Ad
A TV ad for Heineken beer featured a smartly dressed man entering a party whilst having his photograph taken by paparazzi and greeting people on the door. On entering the party he was immediately hugged by one of the guests. He was then offered a cocktail in a Martini glass from a waiter which he declined in favour of a bottle of Heineken from another waiter, but was distracted by another guest before he could take the beer. He continued to walk through the building, greeting different guests in various ways and gave a man wearing an eye patch a glass eye, seemingly from nowhere. A woman looked at him admiringly. The main character and a man dressed in cowboy style clothes glared at each other across the room before play acting a shoot out and hugging. They turned to wave at the paparazzi outside the window. The main character suddenly whipped a table cloth from under glasses and bottles of Heineken without knocking them over and used it to wipe the corner of a woman’s mouth, while the other guests applauded him. He was then thrown an olive which he caught in his mouth, followed by a basketball which he caught and dribbled through the building, high fiving guests on the way, and shot it into a hoop from a long distance. An Asian man flipped into the room acrobatically and took up a martial arts stance. The main character turned to a seated man who handed him what appeared to be a Faberge egg which the main character turned into a bird with a conjuring trick. He approached the Asian man using various martial arts moves while the other guests watched them. The waiter who had offered him the cocktail initially, offered him a bottle of Heineken, which he took and ‘juggled’ between himself and the other man in a series of quick martial arts style moves before leaving it in the other man’s hand. He was thrown a flute and started playing with the band which had been playing the music heard throughout the ad. He was then handed a bottle of Heineken, by the same waiter, which he held aloft in time to the music. On-screen text stated “Heineken open your world”.
Issue
1. Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Molson Coors) and three viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because they believed it implied that alcohol could enhance personal qualities and talents.
Molson Coors and two of the viewers also challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because they believed it:
2. implied that alcohol contributed to the man's popularity and confidence;
3. implied that the success of the social occasion was as a result of drinking alcohol;
4. implied that the social success of the man was as a result of drinking alcohol; and
5. linked alcohol with sexual success.
6. One of the viewers also challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it linked alcohol with daring behaviour.
BCAP Code
Response
Heineken UK Ltd (Heineken) explained that they had used the BCAP rules on alcohol advertising as principal guidance in script development and production, and had given full consideration to social responsibility. They said they had consulted Clearcast both prior to, and during, script finalisation. They explained that the ad reflected the international nature of the Heineken brand and that Heineken drinkers tended to be "men of the world" where their choice of beer reflected their broad experiences of travel, diverse cultures and refined tastes. They said the narrative of the ad was a mildly fantastical scenario and viewers were treated to an eclectic and cosmopolitan mix of characters, sounds and sights. They said the end line "open your world" reflected the diverse, colourful and rich images shown throughout the ad.
Clearcast said they had worked very closely with the agency, prior to approving the ad, to ensure that the treatment complied fully with both the spirit and letter of the BCAP Code rules and that the script and proposed music had also been discussed at great length in Clearcast Secretariat.
1. & 2. Heineken said that at no point during the ad was the main character seen consuming alcohol and it was not implied that he had consumed alcohol prior to his arrival. They said they did not know if, nor imply that, the main character was a regular Heineken drinker or even a regular drinker of alcohol. They argued that whilst the main character was engaging and confident, the ad did not imply that alcohol had caused or contributed to these characteristics, or enhanced his personal qualities. They argued that certain skills or tricks displayed by the main character, such as the basketball shot, the martial arts exchange, the table cloth removal and the flute-playing would have been much more difficult to perform if the main character had been under the influence of alcohol, and there was no suggestion that alcohol had contributed to the achievement of those acts.
Clearcast said they did not feel the ad implied that alcohol contributed towards the main character's popularity and confidence, as it was clearly established from the start of the ad that he was well known amongst most of the other guests who greeted him and interacted with him in various ways. They said the ad did not feature the main character drinking alcohol, or even touching it until the end.
3. & 4. Heineken said that the ad was clear from the beginning that the main character was already well known to fellow guests because he was greeted warmly on arrival. They said it was clear from his entrance and the paparazzi reaction to his arrival that he was more broadly famous. They said there was no direct or implied association with Heineken being the driver of his fame or the warm welcome he received. They argued the viewer was left wondering whether he might be a movie star, musician, magician, TV celebrity or even the host of the party. They said he was clearly a well-travelled "man of the world" and that it could be inferred that the guests, who were from different nations and cultures, were people he had met on his travels.
Heineken pointed out that since very little alcohol was featured or being consumed at the party, it could not be inferred that alcohol generally, or Heineken specifically, was contributing to the success of the occasion. They said that whilst some guests, who featured in the background, had drinks in their hands, there was no sign of conspicuous or over-zealous consumption. They said they had created a party setting where alcohol was reasonably available but clearly not essential to the proceedings. They pointed out that the characters who interacted with the main character were not consuming alcohol, and there was no suggestion that they had been consuming alcohol or would do so.
In relation to the final scene, where the main character was seen holding aloft a bottle of Heineken in time with the music, Heineken explained that he was using the bottle as a prop with which to toast his fellow guests who had greeted him so warmly and indicate his celebration of the occasion. They pointed out that he was not seen drinking from the bottle.
Clearcast said the ad was both highly stylised and presented within a fantastical narrative context, which featured the main character arriving at a party and being greeted by some of the guests who seemed to know him. They said it was clear that when the main character arrived, the party was already underway and so they did not believe the ad implied that the success of the social occasion was as a result of drinking alcohol.
Clearcast did not believe the ad implied the main character's social success was as a result of drinking alcohol as nowhere in the ad was he seen drinking alcohol. They pointed to a scene at the beginning of the ad where he was offered a cocktail, and then a bottle of Heineken, but did not actually accept either of those drinks. They pointed out it was not until the very end of the ad that he was offered a bottle of Heineken but even then, he was not seen drinking from the bottle. They said the agency had been careful to show the other guests with their backs to the main character at this point in the ad so that they could not possibly be 'toasting' the alcohol.
5. Heineken argued that in broad terms, there was no portrayal of sexual activity or seduction in the ad and no implication of any kind of sexual success, whether linked to alcohol or at all. They explained that the main character engaged with a variety of male and female characters throughout the ad. They said there was no dialogue, or action, to suggest seduction, sexual success or that alcohol made him more attractive to potential suitors. They said because it was established he was well-known to fellow guests, it was reasonable that he attracted glances from both male and female attendees. They said where one scene cut to a female guest's reaction, this was, at most, a mild flirtation. They argued that it was not possible to infer that the female was sexually attracted to the main character from just a brief glance and without any dialogue. They argued that even if a viewer had inferred that the female guest found him attractive, there was no implication that his attractiveness had been created or enhanced by the consumption of alcohol. In relation to the scene where the main character dabbed the corner of a female guest's mouth with the tablecloth, Heineken believed the woman was seen smiling appreciatively at his gallant act and the exchange was, at worst, mildly flirtatious. They said that in the final scene, where the main character joined the band on stage, there was nothing to suggest that the presence of alcohol endeared him sexually or otherwise to the band or the female singer.
Clearcast did not believe that the glances the main character received from some of the female guests suggested any sort of sexual success and said they were, at most, brief and mild flirtations which were allowed under the Code. They pointed out that the most contact the main character had with a woman was the female singer at the end of the ad and argued that there was no suggestion of sexual success in that scene as he was simply playing along with the band.
6. Heineken did not believe the ad linked alcohol with daring behaviour. They explained that the scene involving a martial arts exchange between the main character and another man was clearly a parody and in the spirit of the overall narrative of the ad. They pointed out that no alcohol had been consumed by either character and there was nothing in the scene to suggest that alcohol had enhanced either character's skills. They said that whilst both characters playfully attempted to gain possession of the bottle, no physical contact was made other than with the bottle itself and there was no implied threat of violence, danger or aggression. They pointed out that the scene ended with both characters smiling, which signalled the light-hearted nature of the exchange.
Clearcast did not believe the ad linked alcohol with daring behaviour. They said the martial arts sequence was simply a skilful act which was neither violent nor daring, and it was obvious that it was nothing more than a playful exchange between two people who knew each other. They said the exchange was in no way aggressive and both characters were seen smiling at the end.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the main character was charismatic and displayed prodigious talents. We noted that he was able to conjure objects from thin air, whip a table cloth off a table without knocking anything over, shoot a basketball hoop from a long distance and that he was an accomplished flautist and martial arts expert. We noted that the main character declined a martini cocktail on entry to the party in favour of a bottle of Heineken which he did not take because he was distracted by a fellow guest and that this established him as a Heineken drinker early on. However, we considered that the main character was obviously talented, worldly and charismatic from the outset and this was clear from the way he greeted his fellow guests including the character with an eye patch for whom the main character conjured a glass eye. We also considered that because at no point was the main character seen drinking Heineken, there was no cause and effect between drinking Heineken and the man's qualities and talents. We considered that the fact that the man happened to be a Heineken drinker was incidental to his personality and talents. We therefore concluded that the ad did not irresponsibly imply that alcohol could enhance personal qualities and talents.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 19.3 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted that the main character was confident, gregarious and popular and considered that this was established at the outset by the way in which he entered the party and greeted the doormen and fellow guests on arrival. We noted Heineken's comment that the main character may have been the host of the party, that he was well known to most of the guests and that he was presumed famous due to the paparazzi interest in him. We noted that the waiter who offered him the bottle of Heineken in the first scene was the same waiter who passed him the bottle for the martial arts exchange and we considered that the waiter was therefore taking a special interest in him. We also noted that the main character was the centre of attention at the party and that the other guests watched him in awe. Although he was never seen drinking Heineken, we considered that the man was established as a Heineken drinker early in the ad when he motioned to take the bottle of Heineken instead of the cocktail. However, because he was established as being confident and popular from the outset, we considered that the two were incidental and that there was no suggestion that consuming Heineken had contributed to the man's popularity and confidence. For these reasons we concluded that the ad did not irresponsibly imply that alcohol contributed to the man's popularity and confidence.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 19.3 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted that the party was underway when the main character arrived and that he was offered a martini cocktail from a tray of three drinks by one waiter, followed by a solitary bottle of Heineken by another waiter. We noted that none of the guests were seen consuming alcohol, that the majority of guests did not have drinks, and that only a small number of guests in the background were holding drinks, which appeared to be moderately sized glasses of white wine. We considered that although the party became more vibrant and the guests became more animated following the arrival of the main character, this was due to his talented and charismatic nature and not the consumption of alcohol. We further considered that the amount of alcohol seen to be available to guests was not excessive and that alcohol was not a prominent feature of the party. We noted that the main character held aloft a bottle of Heineken in time with the music in the final scene and that his fellow guests where dancing with their backs to him at that point. We considered that Heineken was not therefore being celebrated by the guests and that the main character was either enjoying the music or toasting his fellow guests, many of whom appeared to be his friends. If the party appeared to become more vibrant and lively at that point, we considered it was as a result of the guests moving into the room with the live music and the main character taking the stage with his impromptu flute-playing, rather than as a result of drinking alcohol. For these reasons, we concluded that the ad did not irresponsibly imply that the social success of the party was as a result of drinking alcohol.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 19.4 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.
4. Not upheld
We considered that it was established from the outset that the main character was at ease in, and enjoyed, social situations from the warm and friendly greeting he gave to the doormen and fellow guests, many of whom he appeared to know, and the way they responded to him. We considered that the paparazzi interest in the man implied that he was well known and possibly famous and the way in which he greeted some of the guests implied that they were good friends or acquaintances. We noted Heineken's comment that as a "man of the world", many of the guests may have been people the main character had met on his travels. We also noted that the main character was at no point seen drinking alcohol. We considered therefore that there was no suggestion that the social success of the man was as a result of drinking alcohol since he was already famous or well known to many of the guests and was at ease and comfortable in the social setting. We therefore concluded that the ad did not irresponsibly imply that the social success of the man was as a result of him drinking alcohol.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 19.4 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.
5. Not upheld
We noted that two of the female guests gave the main character admiring, lingering looks and we also noted that the main character dabbed the corner of one of the females' mouths following his trick with the table cloth. We considered that these exchanges were very subtle and brief and we agreed with Heineken and Clearcast that they were, at most, mild flirtations which were allowed under the Code. We also considered that the main character's interaction with the female singer was in the context of him joining in with the band and although they looked at each other while singing and playing the flute, we did not consider that the exchange was sexually charged. For these reasons, we concluded that the ad did not irresponsibly link alcohol with sexual success.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 19.6 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.
6. Not upheld
We noted Heineken's comments that the martial arts exchange was in the spirit of the narrative of the ad which consisted of a mildly fantastical scenario and interactions between the main character and an eclectic mix of colourful and diverse characters. We also noted Heineken and Clearcast's comments that the exchange was not violent, threatening or dangerous and that the only physical contact was with the bottle of Heineken. We considered that the exchange was playful and light-hearted and that this was borne out at the end with the two characters smiling, and the main character handing over the bottle of Heineken to his opponent. We did not consider the act daring because it was not reckless or dangerous and the consequences of the act going wrong were trivial. For these reasons, we concluded that the ad did not irresponsibly link alcohol with daring behaviour.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 19.5 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.