ASA Adjudication on Coca-Cola Great Britain

Ad

Two TV ads for Oasis:

a. The first ad started with a young American female voice-over, which stated "I guess you could say mom's got her own ideas about right and wrong". The mother and daughter were shown in the kitchen and the voice-over continued "now I ain't gonna say she's always wrong but I don't reckon she's hardly ever right either. Had to break it to her that me and my new man Cactus Kid only drink Oasis and don't mess around with no water".

A man was shown in the doorway. He was green with cactus spikes covering his body and was holding a bottle of Oasis. The voic-eover continued as the daughter was shown touching her stomach with both hands: "she 'bout turned white as a sheet when I told her I was fixing to have his baby". The mother shouted "he's a freak" and the voice-over stated "that's about when we figured it was time to say so long to mom".

The girl and 'Cactus Kid' were shown running from the house and speeding away in a car, with the daughter drinking a bottle of Oasis as they drove. The voice-over said "I reckon now she knows how I ended up getting sunburn on the bottom of my feet". Text on screen stated "FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE WATER".

b. The second ad showed the girl and 'Cactus Kid' in a diner. The voice-over stated "after driving clear across three states I was feeling a might parched myself. This old gal Kerry tried to push a couple glasses of plain old table water on us. I asked her just as nice as I could to find us some Oasis, 'cos Cactus Kid would no sooner try and milk a she-wolf than touch him a glass of water". The ad ended with text on screen which stated "Oasis FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE WATER".

Issue

32 viewers complained about the ads.

1. Eight viewers believed the girl in ad (a) appeared to be a minor and it therefore condoned underage sex.

2. Eleven felt ad (a) was offensive and harmful because it condoned teenage pregnancy.

3. Eight complained that the girl's last line in ad (a) was an offensive and potentially harmful sexual reference.

4. Six objected that ad (a) was scheduled inappropriately because it could be seen by children and young people.

5. Ten objected that the suggestion in ad (a) that Oasis was a substitute for water disparaged good dietary practice.

6. Seven objected that the suggestion in ad (b) that Oasis was a substitute for water disparaged good dietary advice.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

1. & 2. Coca-Cola Great Britain (Coca-Cola) said the campaign was shot in the style of classic American road movies, which were widely understood as being part of popular culture and enjoyed by Coca-Colas target audience.  They said Cactus Kids unusual looks and dislike for water earned him the love of Cactus Girl but meant he was made an outcast by society.  They said the ad was not intended to be offensive or harmful; the character of Cactus Girl was a young woman of 20 and the actress who played her was 22.

Clearcast said they had been aware the character would be young, but as she was 20 and therefore not underage they did not envisage a problem and considered viewers were unlikely to be offended.  They said they felt the content of the ad was bizarre enough to remove it from reality; the ad was more likely to be viewed as a film trailer than a reflection of a real life situation.   

3. Coca-Cola said the campaign used edgy humour, popular with fans of Oasis in their 20s, which was not intended to be offensive.  They said the line in ad (a) was a joke about the soles of the feet being difficult to burn but Cactus Girl had done so because of the amount of time she had spent with Cactus Kid in the desert.    

Clearcast said they felt the line was lame innuendo, which was less noticeable because it was mumbled in the ad.

4. Coca-Cola said both ads were restricted so they were not shown immediately before, during or after programmes aimed at children because they believed parents should choose the drinks that were right for their families.  They said they had an established policy not to target their ads at children under 12 years of age and did not advertise their drinks on TV channels aimed at children.   

Clearcast said, because the ads had an ex-kids timing restriction, they believed any potentially awkward questions that may arise as a result of children seeing ad (a) would be avoided.    

5. & 6. Coca-Cola said the ads did not encourage people to substitute Oasis for water but promoted choice for times when they preferred a fruit drink; they had always promoted choice through their wide portfolio of drinks.  They said they did not denigrate water, did not discourage people from drinking it and did not base their scripts on scenarios where water was drunk and then rejected; Cactus Kids preference for Oasis was not because he disliked water but because he preferred a fruity taste.  The idea of the character preferring something was humorous because he was not real.    

Clearcast said Oasis was not a high fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) product and advice from their consultant was that it was no worse a drink than water for hydration.  They said they had discussed the taste preference claim and had advised Coca-Cola that Cactus Girl should not look disgusted when she mentioned water; they felt the ads did not denigrate water because they did not say anything bad about it.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA noted the character of Cactus Girl was 20 year old and the actress who played her was 22 years old.  We considered, however, that her youthful appearance, and the youthful sounding voice-over, meant many viewers were likely to see her as a girl in her early teens.  We therefore considered the reference to her pregnancy was offensive and inappropriate.  We also considered that the combination of her youthful appearance and the reference to her pregnancy meant ad (a) could be interpreted to condone underage sex and teenage pregnancy.  

On these points, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.7 (Health and safety), 7.4.1 (Mental harm) and 7.4.2 (Physical harm).  

3. Upheld

We noted the last line in ad (a) was intended to be a humorous reference to the girls feet being burnt because of the amount of time she had spent in the desert with Cactus kid.  We considered that most viewers were unlikely to interpret the claim in that way and would see it as a sexual innuendo.  We considered that because the ad could be interpreted to condone underage sex and teenage pregnancy, the innuendo was inappropriate and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.  

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.1 (Offence).    

4. Upheld

We noted the ad had an ex-kids restriction which could help prevent young children from seeing it.  We considered, however, that young children were unlikely to understand the sexual references.  We were concerned, however, that the ad was inappropriate for older children and, because it was likely to be interpreted to condone underage sex and teenage pregnancy, contained inappropriate innuendo.  We therefore concluded that an ex-kids restriction was not sufficient.  

On this point, the ad breached (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule  7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and TV Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).

5. Upheld

We noted the ad was intended to promote choice and to use humour to depict Cactus Kids preference for Oasis.  We also noted ad (a) did not show images of the rejection of ordinary drinking water.  We considered, however, that the line "dont mess around with no water" suggested water was being rejected, albeit in a fictional scenario.  We acknowledged the ad did not suggest Oasis was healthier than water but considered it implied the product could be a replacement for water.  We noted the Food Standards Agency (FSA) recommended drinking 1.2 litres of fluid per day and said water was the healthiest choice of drink.  They advised against drinks that contained artificial sugar.  We noted 250 ml serving of Oasis contained artificial sugar and provided around 17% of the guideline daily amount of sugar for an average adult; a standard sized 500 ml bottle provided around 34%.  Because Cactus Girl was likely to be seen as a young girl we considered it was particularly irresponsible to suggest she replaced water with a drink containing sugar.  Because Oasis contained added sugar and the ad suggested water was being rejected by a young girl who drank Oasis as a replacement, we concluded it was irresponsible and could discourage good dietary practice.     

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.2.1 (Diet and lifestyle) and 8.3.3 (Comparisons and good dietary practice).

6. Upheld

We acknowledged the ad was not based on reality and was intended to be humorous.  We considered, however, that the rejection of ordinary drinking water was the overriding message of ad (b).  We considered the line "Cactus Kid would no sooner try and milk a she-wolf than touch him a glass of water" combined with the image of Cactus Girl, a human character, putting her hand up to refuse glasses of water, showed the rejection of drinking water.  We considered that the ad suggested Oasis, a drink that contained sugar, could be a replacement for water.  Because Oasis contained sugar and the overriding theme of the ad was the characters rejection of water, one of whom was likely to be seen as a young girl, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and could discourage good dietary practice.      

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.2.1 (Diet and lifestyle) and 8.3.3 (Comparisons and good dietary practice).

Action

The ads must not be broadcast again in their current form.  

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)