ASA Adjudication on Saab Great Britain Ltd

Ad

A direct mailing, for the Saab BioPower range of cars, included a booklet. The booklet was headlined "Why constrain the power of nature?" and featured an image of a butterfly on the front cover. When the recipient opened the booklet, an elastic band powered mechanical butterfly was released into the air.

Issue

The complaint, whose wife had been hit in the face by the butterfly when she opened the mailing, objected that:

1. the inclusion of the flying mechanical butterfly was irresponsible because it could cause physical harm to the recipient and

2. the flying mechanical butterfly could cause undue distress to recipients.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Saab Great Britain Ltd (Saab) said the mailing was sent to existing customers and people who had shown an interest in the Saab range of vehicles and from whom they had received permission to contact via direct mail.  They said the mailing was intended to inform people, in a memorable and relevant way, about the arrival of BioPower, an eco friendly engine introduced across Saab's product range.  Saab said the butterfly was included to symbolise the release of the latent power of nature that occurred when bio fuels were manufactured and used in automotive transport.  They said the mailing was sent to nearly 30,000 people and they had no plans to use it  again.

1. Saab apologised for any stress or harm the mailing may have accidentally caused the complainant.  They believed, however, sufficient precaution had been taken in evaluating the safety of the device before including it in the mailing.  They said their agency, Draftfcb, had raised the issue of harm to recipients with the supplier when the idea was conceived.  Saab pointed out that the product had been used by a variety of companies in direct mail and that there had been no reported injuries or complaints.  They said, when asked about the possibility of injury, the company that produced and supplied the butterflies across Europe, cited a recent campaign, which had been sent to 100,000 people and had not attracted a single complaint.  Saab had been satisfied by the precedent that there was no risk associated with mailing the product.

Saab said the company that produced the butterflies had conducted standard risk assessments before allowing the device to be sold to the public and supplied to organisations across Europe.

2. Saab said, beyond taking into account the information provided by the supplier, they took the precaution of circulating a mock-up of the pack within their business and amongst employees of their agency not involved in the project.  They said the 30 people involved in the test varied in age from early 20s to late 50s. Saab said the results of the test had satisfied them that the device did not present a risk of injury and was unlikely to cause significant stress to the recipient.  They believed, when the brochure itself was handled prior to opening, it was apparent that something was contained within it.  Saab consequently considered that the event of an object flying from the brochure was not entirely unexpected.  They stressed that the intention of the mailing was only ever to surprise, not to shock or distress recipients.

Assessment

1. & 2. Not upheld

The ASA noted the mechanical butterfly was a commercially available product called the Magic Flyer and understood that it was commonly used in greetings cards.  We noted the Magic Flyer had been used in several large scale mailing campaigns across Europe and that Saab maintained that it had not resulted in reports of any injuries.  We considered that Saab had acted responsibly in examining the safety implications of the Magic Flyer and how recipients were likely to react; we noted they had tested the mailing on their own staff and those of their agency.  Although we noted the Magic Flyer was propelled out of the mailing when opened, we considered that the device was unlikely to physically harm recipients.  We also considered that the Magic Flyer was likely to startle or surprise people but would not cause distress.  We concluded that the mailing did not breach the Code.

We investigated the mailing under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible Advertising) and 9.1 (Fear and distress) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)