ASA Adjudication on Reactor Media Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for a film downloading website, showed a man dressed as Elvis Presley walking down a street. As he walked along he pushed a man, slapped a woman on the bottom, shoulder barged a man to the ground and then pushed a man in the face; his actions were accompanied by loud sound effects. At the end of the ad the man was shown doing some acrobatic dance moves; two women pulled open their tops to reveal their bras and the man fell over.

The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction, which meant it should not be shown in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.

Issue

1. Two viewers objected that the ad was unnecessarily violent and condoned violence.

2. One of the viewers objected that the ad was sexist and demeaning to women.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Clearcast said they had taken care when vetting the script and had looked at 20 different scripts from FilmOn before clearing the ad. They believed the ad was not particularly violent and did not condone violence.  They acknowledged that there was a degree of interpersonal contact but believed none of it could be described as violent, within the context of the ad. They believed the Elvis character was behaving in a boisterous and playful way with the other characters that he bumped into and pushed aside and that none of the characters that he made contact with were seen to be injured or to react with shock to what the Elvis character did to them.  

Clearcast considered that the tone of the ad was light-hearted, cheeky and playful with the main character behaving like a fool who was tolerated, rather than an aggressive, dangerous or violent individual.  They believed the other characters showed a mixture of being nonplussed and mildly amused at his general buffoonery.  They believed the surrounding characters tolerated the man and his behaviour, just as they also tolerated his poor Elvis impersonation.

Clearcast considered that the ad did not show sexist or demeaning behaviour.  They believed the two female characters quickly flashed their bras at the Elvis character to surprise him and therefore stop him showing off. They believed the girls were not coerced and seemed to enjoy their moment of control over the man. They believed, when the man slapped the womans bottom, it was part of his crassness which could be seen as tasteless but was essentially innocent and comical and not demeaning or sexist.

Clearcast said they had given the ad an ex-kids timing restriction to prevent very young viewers attempting to emulate any of the actions shown and to prevent them seeing the gentle nudity.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that the man in the ad was clearly intended to be a figure of amusement. We considered that, although the ad included images of the man pushing people and slapping a woman on the bottom, the tone of the ad was very light-hearted and similar to a slapstick comedy rather than being gratuitously violent; we believed that impression was furthered by the loud sound effects heard when the man pushed or slapped someone. We considered that the ad was obviously over the top and distanced from actions in real life and we concluded that it did not condone violence and was unlikely to encourage violence.

We noted the ad had been given an ex-kids timing restriction.  We considered that the behaviour shown was not harmful but acknowledged that it could be seen as inappropriate.  We therefore understood why some parents might not want their young children to see or copy it.  We considered that the timing restriction that had been imposed was sufficient to keep the ad away from times when younger children would be watching TV alone.  We did not consider that the ad needed to be kept away from times when older children would be watching TV and therefore agreed the ex-kids restriction imposed was appropriate.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.2 (Violence and cruelty), 7.4.2 (Physical harm) and 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions and under CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of TV Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the women were not coerced but chose to undo their tops to flash their bras at the man in an apparent attempt to distract him.  Although we recognised that some viewers would consider the womens actions to be inappropriate and tasteless, we considered that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to be seen as demeaning to women.  We also considered that the ad did not encourage or condone sexist behaviour.

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

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)