ASA Adjudication on Mazda Motors (UK) Ltd

Ad

An ad for the Mazda 6, which appeared in The Independent, The Times, The Guardian, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph and The Evening Standard, had two sections printed on separate pages. The first page showed an elderly woman gesturing with her eyes closed; she seemed to be giving directions to a man in a car. Text stated "WANT DIRECTIONS YOU CAN TRUST? TURN THE PAGE". The second page showed a photograph of the Mazda 6; text stated "THE MAZDA 6. NOW WITH FREE smartnav Worth £899, satellite navigation means you can enjoy an uninterrupted sporty drive ...".

Issue

1.  The National Pensioners Convention, WRVS (formerly the Women's Royal Voluntary Service) and members of the public thought the ad was offensive and ageist, because it mocked elderly people and implied they were confused and unreliable.

2.  Some of the complainants thought the ad was sexist and offensive to women, because it suggested that they were incapable of providing accurate directions.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The ad agency, JWT, responded on behalf of Mazda Motors.  They said the ad intended to highlight to drivers the benefits of using Smartnav over asking people when seeking directions.  They explained that Smartnav, a satellite navigation system, found the optimum route for drivers and provided verbal instructions throughout the journey; any person who was asked to give directions would not be able to provide as exact and efficient instructions as the Smartnav system, even if he or she knew the way and was happy to help the driver.  JWT said the first page of the ad intended to represent a nightmare for drivers: finding themselves lost on a country road, miles away from anywhere familiar, and having to rely on someone else to give them directions, with no guarantee that the directions would be correct or that they would be able to remember them.  They said the elderly woman depicted on the first page was not the focus of the ad; she was a device that showed life for drivers without Smartnav.  They argued that the fact that the driver depicted in the ad had stopped to ask the lady for directions implied her opinion was considered important.  JWT asserted that the word "trust" in the sentence "WANT DIRECTIONS YOU CAN TRUST?" did not suggest that the lady was confused or unreliable, merely that she was not as accurate or factually correct as Smartnav.  They believed the number of complaints was low in proportion to the number of consumers who had been exposed to the ad.

The Independent said they had received no complaints.  They believed the ad was humorous, not offensive.  They said the average age of their readership was lower than that of other 'broadsheets' and  believed the ad would cause minimal, if any, offence to their readers.  They were aware that the ad had appeared in other 'broadsheets' before they ran it.

The Times said they had received no complaints.

The Guardian and Observer said they carefully scrutinised all ads prior to publication to ensure that they would not offend or distress their readers.  They said, however, they had received complaints about the ad and now considered that it could be construed as insensitive.  They said they would not run the ad again and had spoken to Mazda Motors' agency about the feedback they had received from readers.

The Daily Telegraph said they had received no complaints.  They believed their readers would see the depicted elderly woman as a caricature that contrasted with the reliability and modernity of Mazda Motors' product and would not see the ad as ageist.

The Evening Standard asserted that the ad showed a 'granny figure' who was trying to be helpful but could not match the capabilities of Smartnav, which provided the swiftest, most accurate and most concise information.  They believed the ad could not be construed as offensive.

Assessment

1.  Complaints not upheld

The ASA considered that readers were likely to see the ad as portraying Mazda Motors' view that a satellite navigation system could give more accurate and efficient directions than a person.  We considered that the lady in the ad was unlikely to be seen as representing elderly people in general and the ad was unlikely to be seen as mocking elderly people or as suggesting that they were confused and unreliable.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

2.  Complaints not upheld

We considered that the fact that the elderly person depicted in the ad was female was likely to be seen as incidental.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to be seen as sexist or as suggesting that women in general were incapable of providing accurate directions.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.