ASA Adjudication on Rayshield Ltd

Ad

Ads in X360, a magazine about the Xbox 360 video games machine, for adult telephone services from Rayshield. The ads featured photographs of women; text next to one of them stated "FEELING HORNY? 0909 xxx xxxx"; another stated "DESPERATE for sex! 0909 xxx xxxx".

Issue

The complainant, whose 11 year old son bought the magazine, objected that the ads were offensive, irresponsible and unsuitable for publication in a magazine that appealed to children.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Rayshield asserted that they worked with Imagine Publishing (Imagine), which owned X360, to ensure that their ads were suitable for the target readership of the magazine. They said Imagines media pack defined the target audience of X360 as 18 to 35 year old males. They asserted that Imagine ensured X360 magazine was sold in stores in the adult gaming magazines section, not in children or youth magazine sections. Rayshield believed the content of X360 appealed to its target audience and, because of its tone and use of technical language, it was at a level which a child aged 11 would not appreciate.

Imagine said the profile of the readership for X360 was 18 to 35 year old males. They sent a copy of their media pack, which was sent to potential advertisers. The media pack defined the readers of X360 magazine as ABC1 males who were serious gamers, technologically aware, spent substantial time and money on gaming and read other similar publications, including lad magazines. They asserted that the editorial content of X360 was a mixture of news, in-depth review analysis, extensive previews and developed interviews. They argued that the design and content of the magazine were not targeted at children and X360 was therefore unlikely to appeal to them.

Imagine said they worked closely with distributors and retailers of their products and offered them advice on where they believed their magazines should be placed in stores. They sent a copy of a sheet they produced for stores which defined the target audience of X360. They asserted that X360 was not in the teen or childrens sections of newsagents or retail stores and children were therefore unlikely to purchase it. They said they had received one verbal complaint about the ads that appeared in X360 magazine.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted X360 magazine was targeted at 18 to 35 year old men and Imagines media pack informed potential advertisers of the target audience. We also noted Imagine requested X360 was not placed in the teen or childrens sections of retail outlets. We considered that the content of the magazine was adult in tone. We realised that the ads might not be to every readers taste but nevertheless considered that they were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to, or be seen as irresponsible by, readers of X360 magazine.

We investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 (Decency) and 47.2 (Children) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)