ASA Adjudication on Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, and an identical ad shown on the internet, for the DVD release of the comedy horror film Severance, featured brief scenes from the film. These included a coach overturning; a screaming man with his foot caught in an animal trap; a woman with a bloody face and her head tied to a tree; a woman hung upside down and shouting and a man forcing a dismembered leg into a locker.

The TV ad was given a post 9pm restriction by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC).

A second TV ad included the same film clips, but without the scene with the severed leg. This version was given a post 7.30pm restriction by the BACC.

Issue

1. Three viewers complained that the clips from the film, in particular the scene showing the severed limb, were too violent and graphic to be included in a TV ad that had been shown without warning.

2. Three viewers believed it was inappropriate to show the ad while news about a fatal Heathrow coach crash was still being reported.

3. One viewer, who saw the ad on UKTV Gold, believed that, because of the violent content, it was inappropriate to show the ad before 9pm.

4. An Internet user complained that the ad was too violent to be shown on The Sun newspaper website, where it could easily be seen by children.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

1. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment (Twentieth Century) said the ad targeted people who were likely to have an interest in the scary, funny and gory nature of the film, which had been given a '15' certificate rating by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). They explained that there were two ads; one had a timing restriction preventing it from being shown before 7.30pm and the other ad, which included the scene with the severed leg, could only be shown after 9pm. They said their advertising agency worked with the BACC in creating the ads and had taken into account the BACC's advice and recommendations. Twentieth Century said it had not been their intention to cause offence to viewers.

Creative Partnership (Creative) said they produced many TV ads promoting horror films and DVDs and believed they had a good established knowledge of what was generally considered acceptable in an ad with a post 9pm timing restriction. They explained that the film was a black comedy horror film and, because the main target audience was male adults, it was always the intention to broadcast the ads post 7.30pm. Creative said they continually followed the BACC's advice during the creation of the ads and had toned down some scenes to make the ads acceptable for either post 7.30pm or post 9pm. They said the scene with the severed leg appeared in the post 9pm version only.

The BACC said that, based on past experience, they felt the scene of the severed leg needed a post 9pm restriction. They said this restriction was often used for ads that featured scenes of horror, including blood and gore. They believed that the timing restriction would be sufficient to keep it away from young children who might not have understood that the images were intended to be comedic. The BACC said no complaints were raised about the ads for the theatrical release of the film, which had included the same scenes.

2. Twentieth Century and Creative said it was extremely unfortunate that the first broadcast of the ad was on the day after the Heathrow coach crash. Twentieth Century said there was insufficient time before the ad was aired to edit out the scene of the coach turning over.

C4 said it was not their intention to upset viewers and that they tried to ensure responsible scheduling of ads was applied at all times. They said three viewers saw the ad after 9pm on either C4 or E4, but the ad was not broadcast during any news break or during any factual programme of a tragic nature. They believed the ad was therefore appropriately scheduled.

3. UKTV Gold said the ad broadcast at 8.33pm was the version with the post 7.30pm restriction. They said, although they were concerned that a viewer had been upset by the content, they believed the ad was scheduled appropriately and in keeping with the timing restriction applied by the BACC.

4. Twentieth Century believed that, because of the nature of its editorial content, The Sun website was an adult environment and the ad was therefore unlikely to cause offence to its targeted audience.

The Sun said they did not believe that the ad was too violent for their website and pointed out that it had been cleared by the BACC for broadcast on TV. They said the film was a black comedy and the scene involving the severed limb was intended to contain an element of humour. They believed that an ad for a '15' certificate film was appropriate for their website. They said the Sun website was not specifically aimed or marketed at children and the ad appeared on a page that was only likely to appeal to readers of 15 years or older. They told us that they had not received any other complaints.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the more adult ad had been given a post 9pm scheduling restriction. We considered that the brief and fast moving film clips were no more explicit than those found in similar horror film ads that were broadcast after 9pm. Although we understood the type of dark humour used was not to all tastes, we considered that viewers were likely to understand the comic intentions of the short scene with the severed leg. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause widespread offence.

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

2. Not upheld

We expect broadcasters to have systems in place to avoid an inappropriate clash between an ad and a programme and, in particular, news reports. We acknowledged that the Heathrow coach crash was still in the news on the day the ad was first broadcast, but noted the ad was not shown during or near any news reports of the tragedy. We also noted the coach crash scene was not the main focus of the ad, but just one of a number of clips and was on screen for approximately one second. We concluded that, because the ad had not appeared near news reports and the crash scene was brief, it had been scheduled appropriately and was unlikely to cause widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of Advertising 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 (General principles) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted that the ad broadcast on UKTV Gold was the post 7.30pm version, without the scene with the severed leg. We considered that the fast changing and brief scenes were unlikely to cause general widespread offence to viewers in an ad that was scheduled after 7.30pm.

On this point, we investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

We noted the ad appeared on the Sun website but did not consider that the newspaper website was likely to be of particular appeal to children. We considered that the black humour of the ad was in keeping with the other type of adult material found on the site and concluded that the ad was unlikely to be found inappropriate by most users of the website.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)