ASA Adjudication on Lions Gate UK Ltd

Ad

a. A poster ad for the film Saw IV, on the side of buses, showed a side view of a man's head in a metal dish. Text to the left of the image stated "YOU THINK IT IS OVER BUT THE GAMES HAVE JUST BEGUN." Text to the right of the image stated "SAW IV - AT CINEMAS OCTOBER 26."

b. An ad in the Daily Star showed a larger version of the image: the man's head was in a metal dish attached to a weighing scale by a metal chain. Text appeared as in ad (a), with the addition of text underneath the image which stated "AT CINEMAS TOMORROW - IF IT'S HALOWEEN, IT MUST BE SAW."

c. A poster showed the same image as ad (b). Text to the left stated "SAW IV - IT'S A TRAP."

d. An ad in Odeon Magazine showed the same image and text as ad (b), with the addition of a blood-splattered background.

e. Two-page ads in the Evening Standard and Metro showed the text from ad (b) on the first page and the image from ad (b) on the second page.

f. Banner ads on Faceparty and MySpace websites showed the image from ad (d).

Issue

1.  38 complainants challenged whether the image in ad (a) was acceptable for use in an untargeted medium on the side of a bus, where children were likely to see it.  One of the complaints was from a school-age child who found it distressing.  Six other complainants said the ad had disturbed children ranging in age from four to 13 years.

2.  Four readers challenged whether the images in ads (b) and (e) were acceptable in publications where children could see them.  One reader said his 10 year old daughter had been distressed by the image.

3.  Two complainants challenged whether ad (c) was acceptable in an untargeted medium where children were likely to see it.

4.  Two readers challenged whether ad (d) was acceptable in a magazine that also featured films of interest to young children.

5.  Three complainants challenged whether it was acceptable on websites that children were likely to access.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Lions Gate UK Ltd (Lions Gate) said they believed it was a possibility that a minority of the general public was likely to find both the film and the advertising for it distasteful.  They said they had not set out to offend anyone intentionally.  They said the ads were intended to be "tongue in cheek" and similar in tone to, and no more extreme than, ads for previous films in the "Saw" series.

They said that because the film had an 18 certificate, most of the advertising was targeted at, and in some cases restricted to, people aged 18 years and above.  They said they had taken advice where the ads appeared in more mainstream media.

1.  Lions Gate said they took advice from the media owner, CBS Outdoor Ltd (CBS), on whether the image was likely to cause offence.  They said CBS believed the ad was acceptable.

CBS said they had edited the image that was originally supplied to them.  They said they had removed the appearance of most of the blood and cropped it to make the head appear as though it was in a brace rather than severed.  They said they believed the image used was acceptable and in keeping with the content of the film.  They said no complaints were made direct to them.

2.  Lions Gate said the national press publications in which the ad ran were The Sun, the Daily Star and the Mirror.  They said the publications were generally read by people aged 15 years and over, with the majority being 18 years and over.  Lions Gate believed that in that context, and bearing in mind the editorial content that ran in the national press publications, the ads were unlikely to cause offence.  They said two-page ads had appeared in the Metro, which was distributed in major conurbations and which they believed was read predominantly by adults.  They acknowledged that, being a free publication, it was unavoidable that the paper could be picked up and read by a younger person.

Express Newspapers (for the Daily Star) said they had had no objection to the ad.

We received no response from Associated Newspapers Ltd (for the Metro), the second newspaper where we had received complaints from readers.

3.  Lions Gate said the only posters were those that appeared in cinemas.  They said they had been approved by the Advertising Viewing Committee, as was required for any posters publicising 18-rated films.

4.  Lions Gate said the only magazines in which the ad appeared were Zoo, Nuts and Kerrang, which they believed targeted readers over 18 yers of age, and Odeon Magazine.

We received no response from Odeon and UBI Cinemas Ltd (for Odeon Magazine, the publication where we had received complaints from readers).

5.  Lions Gate said the banner ads were targeted at people of 18 years and above, but that it was the nature of the medium that younger people could access it as well.  They said the sites which ran the ads were restricted to or targeted at people aged 18 years and over.

Faceparty said they were a website for people aged 16 and over.  They said that because the ad was published in other media including the sides of buses, posters and press, they did not believe the image was inappropriate.  They said that historically their members did not tend to object to horror film ads and no complaints were made direct to them.

MySpace said their members were required to be over 14 years of age and that 86% of their audience was over 18 years.  They said they therefore did not accept that children were likely to access the image on MySpace.  They said that under the terms of placing ads on MySpace, advertisers needed to ensure that their ads complied with the CAP Code.  They said no complaints were made direct to them.

Assessment

1.  Not upheld

The ASA noted that a small proportion of the complaints stated that children had found the ad disturbing.  We considered that, although the ad was likely to be distasteful to some, the image was unlikely to be considered explicitly horrific and unlikely to cause offence or distress, either to children or adults.

2.  Not upheld

We noted that the ad showed the head in a weighing scale.  We considered, however, that the ad contained nothing else in the way of blood or gore that might be expected in an ad for a horror film and considered that although older children might see the ad, younger children were less likely to see it in this media.  We did not consider it was likely to cause offence or distress, either to children or adults.

3.  Not upheld

We considered that, although the posters appeared in cinemas, where children of all ages were likely to see them, the ad was unlikely to be considered explicitly horrific by either the children or adults who saw the posters and unlikely to cause offence or distress to them.

4.  Not upheld

We considered that, although the magazine featured films of interest to children, the ad was unlikely to be considered explicitly horrific by either the child or adult readers and unlikely to cause offence or distress to them.

5.  Not upheld

We noted the safeguards described by the websites but did not consider they could ensure in themselves that children would not see the ad.  Nevertheless, we considered the ad was unlikely to be considered explicitly horrific by either the children or adults that saw it and was unlikely to cause offence or distress to them.

On points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 5.1 (Decency) and 9.1 (Fear and distress) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)