ASA Adjudication on Australian Tourist Board

Ad

Two ads for Tourism Australia featured various scenes of Australian life. These included shots of a busy bar while a man said "We bought you a beer"; a car was seen driving along a wide open country road and another man said "and Bill's on his way to open the front gate"; a woman said "We got the shower working" beside a backdrop of a waterfall; a waiter at an open air restaurant said "and dinner's about to be served"; a man said "Your taxi's waiting." as a water taxi was shown landing. The ad ended with a woman on a beach, who said "So where the bloody hell are you?" The ads were given an 'ex-kids' restriction by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) to ensure that they were not scheduled in or around programmes made for or targeted specifically at children. They were also given a restriction to prevent them being scheduled around religious programmes. Broadcasters were advised by the BACC to take care when scheduling the ads. Alternative versions of the ads, without the word "bloody", were also broadcast.

Issue

36 viewers objected to the swearing in the ads, which they found offensive. Of these, 16 were also concerned that children might see the ads and eight believed they should not be shown before 9 pm.

Response

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said the ads had been discussed at great length, including two consultations with their Copy Committee and a meeting with the Australian Government, before they were approved.  They said independent research supplied by the Tourism Australia showed the phrase "Where the bloody hell are you?" would be understood by viewers in the spirit in which it was intended: a typical and authentic Australian invitation. The BACC also believed that "bloody" was no longer regarded as being too bad a word. They referred to research on offensive words carried out by the ASA and, amongst others, the former TV content regulator the Independent Television Commission (ITC).  They said the research had shown the word "bloody" was very low on the list of words considered as swearing.  They believed that although a particular term might be on the list it did not automatically mean it was unacceptable for use in TV advertising.   

The BACC believed that, in context and with the light tone and nature of the ads, the use of "bloody hell" was sufficiently mild not to be considered unsuitable for children by most viewers.  They maintained that their decision to approve the ads had been justified by the relatively low level of complaints. The BACC said the approval of these ads did not mean "bloody" would be automatically approved in future ads.

M&C Saatchi said the use of "bloody hell" had to be looked at in context of the ads.  They said the ads had used everyday Australian language, recognised and understood by UK consumers, delivered in a genuine voice without any intent to offend. To support their argument they quoted an Australian Government Minister who apparently said the word "bloody" was "a great Australian adjective. We all say it. It's part of our language."  Tourism Australia said they had undertaken research on the use of the word "bloody" and its potential to offend. This research was completed in two parts; research into previously published studies and a self-commissioned qualitative consumer group study. They said the results had shown that not only was the word found to be harmless and inoffensive, but respondents believed that without it the campaign lost its tonality and its authenticity as a uniquely Australian communication. They believed the high quality shots of Australia, the engaging scenarios, together with the colloquial, irreverent and cheery manner of the woman delivering the line rendered it inoffensive.  They regarded an 'ex-kids' restriction to be sufficient for the ads.  

As broadcasters had specifically been tasked with careful scheduling, the ASA asked for their comments. ITV acknowledged the potential for offence. They said they had taken the decision to schedule the ads with caution, outside family viewing time and not in programmes likely to appeal to a family audience.  They also took into account the audience profile of the programmes in which the ads were scheduled. They believed their scheduling had minimised the potential for offence.

Channel 4 believed it was appropriate for them to show the ads on their channels given the tone and their careful scheduling policy. They said that in their opinion the ads were not offensive.  However, because they were aware the use of the word "bloody" had the potential to offend some viewers, they had scheduled the ads around programmes where the percentage of children watching was low.   They acknowledged that a small proportion of viewers had been offended but maintained that their decision to show the ads was the correct one.  

Five said they had scheduled the ads carefully around programmes that attracted a broad adult audience (the complainant saw it at 21.45). They apologised to any viewers who were offended.

Assessment

Complaint upheld

The ASA recognised from previous research that some viewers found any swearing in advertising unacceptable at any time.  However, we recognised that over time attitudes changed and judged that most adult viewers would not now find the use of this relatively mild swear word inherently offensive, given the context and non-aggressive tone.  We acknowledged the care taken by the broadcasters to schedule the ads around programmes with a more adult theme or low child audience, but noted they were shown at various times during the day.  We considered that because viewers were aware of the possibility of swearing in a TV programme from warning announcements at the start or simply by the type of programme itself, those programmes could be avoided.  We also considered that parents were entitled to expect that TV advertising should not appear to endorse or encourage swearing.  We were concerned that, because ads were intrusive and appeared uninvited and without any warning about their content, it was difficult for those who wanted to ensure children did not hear swearing on TV to avoid them.  For that reason, we concluded that the ads were inappropriate for broadcast before 9 pm.  We instructed the BACC to restrict the ads to post 9 pm.

The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.3.1 (Mental harm children - social, moral and psychological), 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).   We also investigated the ads under the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.1 (Offence) but did not find them in breach.

Action

The ads must not be shown again before 9 pm.