Top 10 most complained about ads
- Most advertisements brought to the ASA's attention receive only one complaint. However, some ads generate high numbers of objections. Here we list the most complained about ads of 2007 and the ASA's response.
- 1 Department of Health
- 2 Cadbury Trebor Bassett Services Ltd t/a Cadburys
- 3 Kepak UK Ltd t/a Rustlers
- 4 MFI Retail Ltd
- 5 Marlow Foods Ltd
- 6 Coca-Cola Great Britain
- 7 British Heart Foundation
- 8 John Wyeth & Brother Ltd t/a SMA Nutrition
- 9 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
- 10 News Group Newspapers Ltd t/a The Sun
Department of Health
774 complaints / Upheld
This hard hitting multi-media campaign was designed to encourage smokers to quit, but complaints were that the TV, national press, poster and internet ads were offensive, frightening and distressing. The poster ads generated the most complaints with objections that they could frighten and distress children.
We decided the ads were unlikely to cause serious offence or distress to adult viewers. However, despite an ex-kids restriction, we felt that two of the TV ads and the poster ads could frighten and distress children and upheld complaints on this basis.
Read the full adjudication on our website.
Cadbury Trebor Bassett Services Ltd t/a Cadburys
519 complaints / Upheld
Viewers complained that these TV and cinema ads for chewing gum were offensive and racist as they showed offensive stereotypes and ridiculed black or Caribbean people and their culture.
Whilst we considered that the ads did not incite racial intolerance or discrimination, we noted the stereotype depicted in the ads had, unintentionally, caused deep offence to a significant minority of viewers and the complaints were upheld.
Read the full adjudication on our website.
Kepak UK Ltd t/a Rustlers
219 complaints / Upheld
Two TV ads attracted complaints that they were offensive, sexist and demeaning to women. The ads depicted a woman in a man’s flat. The man started microwaving food, as a sofa rotated revealing the woman in her underwear. A voice-over said: “If only everything was as quick as Rustlers”. The ads had an ex-kids restriction but had been shown during “Bugsy Malone”.
We considered the humour in the ads would be unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to be seen as sexist or demeaning to women. However because “Bugsy Malone” was likely to be watched by a high proportion of children we upheld complaints about the scheduling of the advertisements.
Read the full adjudication on our website.
MFI Retail Ltd
217 complaints / Upheld
This TV campaign featured heated family arguments that turned out to be within MFI stores. Despite the ads having an ex-kids restriction, viewers complained that they were shocking, offensive and disturbing and irresponsibly suggested that arguing and shouting were normal features of home life.
We felt that viewers would understand that raised voices and disagreements occur in many domestic situations. However, complaints about one of the ads which showed a woman slapping her husband across the face for leaving the toilet seat up were upheld on the grounds that it was likely to cause offence and could be seen to condone violence.
Read the full adjudication on our website.
Marlow Foods Ltd
181 complaints / Not upheld
This TV ad for Quorn, showed a family sitting down to eat. The teenage daughter objected to everyone being served Quorn, saying it was “her thing”. She turned to her brother with a fork in her hand and said: “Touch my food; feel my fork”. Complainants saw this as a threat of violence which was irresponsible and offensive and could encourage bullying.
We viewed the ad as a light-hearted portrayal of family life. As there was no violence shown we felt it was unlikely to encourage harmful emulation, to cause harm to children or to cause serious or widespread offence.
Coca-Cola Great Britain
180 complaints / Not upheld
A vicious attack by a crocodile on an unlucky wildebeest attracted complaints from viewers who found this ad distressing because it trivialised the violent death of an animal. Some complainants also objected that their children were frightened by the ad. The ad, for the soft drink Oasis, was cleared for broadcast after 7.30 pm.
We considered the ad was likely to be seen as a light-hearted spoof and noted there were no graphic images of the animal being struck or bitten. We considered the post-7.30 pm restriction would ensure it was not seen by children unsupervised and it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
British Heart Foundation
122 complaints / Not upheld
This charity ad appeared as a poster and in the national press. It featured a man and a woman cuddling on a beach. The man was naked except for a swimming hat and goggles. Complainants objected that the nudity in the ad was offensive and gratuitous and irrelevant to the product. Several also complained that the poster ads, some of which were placed near primary schools, were unsuitable for display where they could be seen by children.
We noted that the man’s genitals were covered and the nudity in the ad was not explicit. We decided the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, or to harm children.
John Wyeth & Brother Ltd t/a SMA Nutrition
109 complaints / Not upheld
This TV ad for baby milk showed a dad falling asleep next to a boiling kettle and a tin of formula. On-screen text stated: “Progress is a follow-on formula. Not intended to replace breastfeeding”. Complainants objected that the ad was misleading and harmful because it did not make clear that it was advertising formula for babies over six months of age and because it might discourage mothers from breastfeeding.
Although some images in the ad could be interpreted as references to younger babies, we considered the ad as a whole made sufficiently clear that it was promoting a follow-on formula for babies aged over six months and was unlikely to discourage breastfeeding or to mislead or cause harm.
Read the full adjudication on our website.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
68 complaints / Not upheld
This poster stated: “Feeding kids meat is child abuse”. Complainants objected the ad was irresponsible as it encouraged parents to withdraw meat from their children’s diet without replacing the nutrients it provides. Complainants also objected that the ad trivialised child abuse, was offensive and distressing to parents who fed their children meat and misleadingly implied that eating meat could lead to obesity.
Although the campaign carried an “anti-meat” message we decided parents were likely to understand that if a food is withdrawn from a child’s diet the nutrients that food provided should be replaced. Whilst some might find the wording inappropriate, we considered that the ad did not trivialise child abuse or mislead consumers.
Read the full adjudication on our website.
News Group Newspapers Ltd t/a The Sun
56 complaints / Not upheld
Was this too much flesh for the side of a bus? Complainants objected to this ad for The Sun newspaper that showed the naked top half of a woman with an enlarged ten pence piece covering each breast. The complainants objected to women being portrayed as sexual objects, the ads appearing on buses where children could view them and said that the image was pornographic.
We ruled that the ad, whilst distasteful to some, was not overtly sexual in nature and the amount of flesh revealed was no different to that in a bikini ad. It could not reasonably be argued to be pornographic, nor was it likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
