ASA Adjudication on Fair and Square Ltd

Ad

TV ads for Fair & Square, a company which offered homeowner loans, consisted of a series of shifting monochrome polka dot and line patterns.

Issue

One viewer, whose granddaughter had photosensitive epilepsy, challenged whether the ads were harmful to viewers with photosensitive epilepsy.

BCAP TV Code

Response

BBH, the agency acting on behalf of Fair and Square, explained that they were aware that great care would need to be taken in preparing the ads because of the moving patterns involved.  They said the production company had, therefore, advised that the ads should be checked at each stage of the creation process using the Harding FPA (Flash and Pattern Analyser) machine to ensure that none of the effects created could cause problems to viewers.  

BBH acknowledged that flashing images and regular or moving patterns were a cause of photosensitive epilepsy, but believed they had taken all possible precautions to ensure that the ads would not cause harm to viewers.  They sent confirmation of the testing at each stage of the ads' development and the testing certificates issued for the final ads, which confirmed that they had passed the Harding FPA test, for the ASA's attention.  

Clearcast said they took the exposure of potentially harmful material for viewers who experienced photosensitive epilepsy very seriously.  They explained that every ad they vetted was tested to comply with the Ofcom Guidance Note on Flashing Images and Regular Patterns in Television.  They said they also provided general guidance at pre-production stage; they had discussed the ads with BBH in the initial stages of the clearance process and both parties recognised that care would need to be taken.  They confirmed that the ads passed all checks, including a test using the Harding FPA machine, and were cleared as fit for broadcast.             

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA appreciated the concern of the viewer who, we understood, was aware of the type of images that could prove problematic to those susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy. We also understood that, because it was a fundamental requirement that broadcast material should comply with guidance on flashing imagery before transmission, the ads' compliance had been checked using the Harding FPA machine before being cleared by Clearcast.

In order to confirm the ads' suitability, we consulted Ofcom for further analysis.  Ofcom confirmed that, although they contained repetitive patterns, the ads content fell below the limits set out in the Ofcom Guidance Note on Flashing Images and Regular Patterns in Television and they were, therefore, compliant.  They explained that the Guidance Notes were developed in conjunction with the leading medical experts on photosensitive epilepsy and, although they were intended to reduce the risk of flashing and repetitive patterns from triggering seizures in susceptible viewers, they could not eliminate risk entirely.

We noted the comments of BBH, Clearcast and Ofcom and understood that, although it was never possible to remove all risk to viewers who experienced photosensitivity, the guidelines in place helped greatly to reduce it.  We acknowledged that, in this case, the ads had been tested against the existing guidance and had passed as compliant.  We therefore concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause harm to viewers.

We investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.7 (Health and safety) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)