ASA Adjudication on Kellogg Company of GB Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut Cornflakes showed a presenter standing in front of a video screen. She said “An epidemic is upon us. People everywhere are going to extreme lengths to get home from work.” The screen enlarged to show a man very small in appearance finishing work in an office and then riding home on the back of a large dog, an Irish Wolfhound. Text at the bottom of the screen said “Don’t try this with your dog at home.” After arriving home, milk was poured on to a bowl of the cereal by what appeared to be the dog’s paw. The man was then seen sitting at his kitchen table eating it. The presenter’s voice continued “and all for another bowl of this ludicrously tasty Crunchy Nut.”

Issue

Ninety-six viewers were concerned that the ad portrayed cruelty to animals and gave the potentially harmful impression to the public that it was acceptable and safe to ride large dogs such as the Irish Wolfhound shown in the ad. They said this would cause permanent damage to the dogs spine and unnecessary suffering to the dog.

1.  Sixty-three viewers were concerned about the likelihood that viewers generally would try to copy the action shown.

2.  Thirty-three were concerned that children were particularly likely to copy it.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Kelloggs said the ad was part of a wider campaign, which aimed to convey the ludicrous lengths people might go to for a bowl of the cereal.  They said the campaign as a whole depicted methods of transport that were so unfeasible that they defied reality and that the scenes were intended to be of a cartoon nature, surreal and unrealistic.  They said a vet was present at the shoot to ensure the wellbeing of the animal; that no one actually rode a dog in the making of the ad and that it was not harmed in any way.

Kelloggs believed the scene was clearly computer generated and said the dog was not shown to be in distress.  They said the scene in which the dog appeared to be pouring milk was included deliberately to reinforce the message that the ad was not portraying a scene from real life.

Kelloggs said it had been agreed between themselves, the advertising agency and the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) that those points together ensured that neither older children nor adults would take the ad seriously.  They said the ad was intended to target 25 to 34-year-olds and that research had shown that 87% of consumption of Kelloggs Crunchy Nut was by those aged 16 years and over.  They said the ad was not aimed at children and they did not believe it would appeal particularly to them, but that nevertheless as a precaution the BACC had imposed a restriction keeping the ad away from programmes designed specifically for children and had included the text Do not try this on your dog at home.  They said they believed those precautions were sufficient, but they were prepared to restrict the ad to later times in the evening - such as after 7.30 pm only - to reduce the likelihood that younger children would see it.

The BACC endorsed Kelloggs response.  They said they had given the ad a great deal of consideration and believed it was sufficiently clear that the scene was fantasy and that the man was not actually riding the dog.  They believed the scene in which the dog appeared to pour milk on to the cereal was a further indication that the action was not real.  They said they had imposed the scheduling restriction and added the warning text in case very young children were not able to distinguish the ad from reality.

Assessment

1.  Complaints not upheld

The ASA considered the surreal nature of the ad was established from the outset and continued throughout the ad and that the computer-generated appearance of the scene in which the man was shown riding the dog would be apparent to most viewers.  We noted the points made by Kelloggs and the BACC, including the precautions the BACC took to ensure the well-being of the animal when the ad was filmed.  We considered the ad was unlikely to be seen by most viewers as a gratuitous or realistic portrayal of cruel treatment of an animal; that the ad did not encourage or condone such cruelty and that, as a result, it would not cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.2 (Violence and cruelty) and 6.3 (Use of animals in filming) but did not find it in breach.

2.  Complaints not upheld

We considered young children were unlikely to read the warning text, but that older children would be able to read it and it might prove useful for parents to point out to younger children.  Generally, however, we considered children were likely to be used to relatively straightforward surreal or bizarre imagery from their own TV programmes and films and that they would not necessarily expect to be able to copy the action shown in the ad.  The scheduling restriction the BACC had imposed kept the ad away from breaks around programmes aimed specifically at children and was designed to limit the likelihood that those up to the age of four years would see it.  We considered this restriction was sufficient in the circumstances.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 6.2 (Violence and cruelty) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.