ASA Adjudication on OIGE CG Ltd

Ad

Ad (a) featured two people of restricted growth, dressed in dice costumes and wearing safety goggles and helmets, surveying the area around them from the top of a hill; a voice-over commentated in mock Japanese gameshow style. As they started to run, the two characters ducked their head into their costume and then rolled down the steep hill. The ad showed the ground rushing by at great speed. The dice crashed into a wall at the bottom of the hill, imitating a giant game of craps. The noise of a cockerel could be heard as the dice hit the wall. The scene ended with the character’s heads popping out of the dice costumes and on-screen text stating “over 18’s [sic] only WIN” on the bottom of the screen. The Intercasino logo appeared with on-screen text stating “Online casino and poker since 1996. www.intercasino.co.uk” and one of the character’s heads popped through a paper screen and said “let’s play”.

Ad (b) featured three people of restricted growth, dressed as bell ringers, standing in a belfry. A voice-over commentary in mock Japanese gameshow style ran throughout the advertisement. The three characters pulled the ropes. As they did so, they were pulled up into the rafters with a drawn-out mooing sound effect. One character had a confused expression on his face. The three characters reappeared at the top of the screen; they were dressed in cherry costumes, mimicking a winning formation from a fruit machine. The winning “pay out” noise sounded. The voice-over stated “Cherry; Cherry; Cherry; Win!”. Oversized coins hit them on the head. The Intercasino logo appeared on the screen and on-screen text stated “Online casino and poker since 1996. www.intercasino.co.uk.”

Ad (c) featured two people of restricted growth wearing shorts and lying face-down on some grass. A horn sounded. The two characters rolled over to reveal their torsos, which had been painted with card patterns. One had an ace of spades on his chest; the other had a five of diamonds. A voice-over commentary in mock Japanese gameshow style continued throughout the advertisement. The on-screen text “Hit” appeared at the bottom of the screen. A noise resembling a crowing cockerel could be heard. A third character landed between the two characters; he had the eight of hearts painted on his chest. A fourth character landed horizontally across the other three men; he had a five of clubs painted on his chest. The characters shook their fists to indicate victory. On-screen text stated “dealer gets 21”. The characters made hand-gestures and grimaced to signal their disgust at losing the hand. The Intercasino logo appeared on the screen and on-screen text stated “Online casino and poker since 1996. www.intercasino.co.uk.”

Ad (d) featured two persons of restricted growth, wearing shorts, lying face-down on some grass. A horn sounded. The characters rolled over to display painted torsos, with the background sound effects of a cockerel crowing, a dog barking and, finally, a lamb. A voice-over commentary in mock Japanese gameshow style continued throughout the advertisement. One character had an ace of spades painted on his chest; the other a five of diamonds. A third character landed between them; he had a five of clubs painted on his chest. The characters imitated a winning hand in a blackjack game. This time, however, the on-screen text “HIT” appeared at the bottom of the screen followed by “WIN”. The character who had landed in the middle of the pile shook hands with the other characters. The Intercasino logo appeared on the screen and on-screen text stated “Online casino and poker since 1996. www.intercasino.co.uk.”

Issue

Monitoring staff challenged whether:

1. ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) were of particular appeal to children and young persons, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture;

2. ads (a), (c) and (d) featured characters behaving in an adolescent, juvenile or loutish way.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Clearcast explained that it had carefully considered the individual elements of the ads.  They interpreted the humour of the ads as not juvenile or adolescent.  They considered the humour was odd, wacky, bizarre and uniquely Japanese, distinct and physical, boisterous and playful and would appeal to all tastes.  They believed the tone of the ads was a pastiche of the programme "Takeshis Castle".

Clearcast considered that the four advertisements were far removed from the "Jackass" television show, which focused mainly on young people performing dangerous stunts.  They explained the stunts in Jackass were generally dangerous, easily emulated, performed by famous actors and identified as cool.  They added that the action in Jackass was often illegal, anti-social, anti-authoritarian and involved rule-breaking.

They added that the ads did not feature famous characters, unlike the Jackass TV programme. As such, the ads were not comparable to the Jackass show or "jackass" culture and they thought the advertisements were not associated with youth culture and so would not have particular appeal to children or young persons.

Clearcast explained that they thought the people of small stature in ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) would not have particular appeal to children or young persons and instead would have universal appeal.

OIGE believed that ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) contained gentle slapstick humour reminiscent of old-fashioned routines by Charlie Chaplin or Benny Hill and, because of that, the advertisements would have particular appeal to an older audience and not be of particular appeal to children and young people.  They thought the humour was in no way juvenile, adolescent or loutish and said the advertisements were designed to fit the brand, which was intended to be fun and relatively light-hearted.  OIGE acknowledged that all physical comedy is likely to appeal to children and young people.  They believed that an ASA decision that the ads had particular appeal to young persons would prevent the use of physical comedy in gambling ads.  

They maintained that the activities in (a), (b), (c) and (d) were not comparable to the activities in programmes such as Banzai, Takeshis Castle or Jackass and they had not sought to emulate those programmes.  OIGE argued that the gentle slapstick action in the ads was not as extreme as the activities undertaken in Jackass or Takeshi Castle and, because of that, the ads were unlikely to be of particular appeal to children and young people.  OIGE said nothing suggested an audience were poking fun at the participants of the ads.  

OIGE maintained that people of restricted growth would not appeal especially to children and young people and were more likely to be perceived as comedy actors with a distinctive and wide appeal to all ages.  They added that the people of restricted growth were established actors aged 28 to 56 and were obviously not adolescents.  OIGE was concerned that, just because a person of restricted growth had featured in Jackass, an adverse ASA adjudication would mean that all people of restricted growth who were actors performing comedy routines would be stereotyped as behaving in an adolescent, juvenile or loutish way.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that the slapstick humour in ads (a), (b) (c) and (d) was likely to appeal to children and young persons.  

We considered that the advertisement that featured the characters rolling down the hill dressed in dice costumes was very similar to Takeshis Castle, which featured similar wacky scenarios.  We noted the contestants on the show were routinely dressed up in costumes and made to participate in games that involved the audience laughing at their expense.  

We considered that advertisements (a), (b), (c) and (d) all featured some form of comedic "Japanese" voice-over, similar to that in Takeshis Castle or the parody of Takeshis Castle, "Banzai", which used to be broadcast on Channel Four.  Those programmes have particular appeal to children and young persons and are linked to youth culture.

We considered that the action in ad (a) was similar in tone to that featured in the programme Jackass, which has a particular appeal to children and young persons.  We considered that, because of the way ad (a) featured characters participating in a form of self-humiliation and dressing up in costumes, the action in ad (a) was very similar to some of the stunts portrayed in Jackass and, as such, would have particular appeal to children or young persons through its association with youth culture. Also, we noted Jackass featured a character called "wee man", who is a person of restricted growth and who would regularly participate in stunts and similar acts of self-humiliation.  We also considered that, because they featured characters participating in activities similar to those of the character "wee man" in Jackass, advertisements (a), (c) and (d) would have particular appeal to children and young persons.

We considered that the sound effects used in all four advertisements were juvenile and adolescent humour that would appeal to children and young persons.

We considered that ad (b) would appeal to children and young persons because of the juvenile humour in the bell ringers being pulled into the rafters only to reappear as a winning cherry formation in the fruit machine.

We considered that, because their tone and style were extremely similar to the types of programmes that had particular appeal to children, the advertisements reflected and associated themselves with youth culture that children and young persons would find particularly appealing.  Also, we considered that the juvenile humour used in the ads was likely to have particular appeal to children and young persons.  We noted that people of restricted growth have been used as characters in films and literature, for example Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and The Hobbit, because of their appeal to children.  We considered that the way the people of restricted growth had been used in the ads was likely to increase the ads appeal to children and young persons.

The ads breached the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 11.10.2 (b).

2. Upheld

We considered that, because their behaviour in replicating a winning hand of cards was childlike, the characters in advertisements (c) and (d) acted in an adolescent and juvenile way.  We considered that jumping on people was behaviour typical of children.

We considered that the action of the characters in ad (a), rolling down a hill while dressed in giant dice costumes, was seeking to imitate the commonplace childhood game of children rolling down a hill.

We concluded that advertisements (a), (c) and (d) depicted juvenile behaviour, which breached the Code.

The ads breached the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 11.10.2 (c).

Action

We concluded that all four ads should not be shown again.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)