ASA Adjudication on The Scottish Government

Ad

A TV ad, for The Scottish Government, encouraged viewers to register as organ donors. It showed an image of a young girl's head set against a black background. The voice-over and on-screen text stated "Would you allow your organs to save a life? You have 20 seconds to decide". The girl's face started to fade gradually and become distorted. The voice-over stated "Kill Jill?" and on-screen text stated "Kill Jill" accompanied by a choice "Yes" or "No". The voice-over and on-screen text then stated "No … register and you could save a life".

Issue

1. Several viewers objected that the ad was misleading, offensive and distressing, because it implied that people who did not register as organ donors were killing someone.

2. One viewer called Jill, whose seven-year-old son had been upset by the ad, objected that it  was likely to cause distress to children.

BCAP TV Code

Response

The Scottish Government said their aim was to motivate individuals to sign up to the UK Organ Donor Register, not to offend or court controversy with their advertising.  They acknowledged that the ad was hard-hitting but they believed it was so for justifiable reasons.  They said analysis of previous 'softer' campaigns had shown that it was very difficult to spur people into action and get them to sign up for something that involved an unpleasant subject matter.  They said there was a massive gap between public intention to sign up to the register and their actual behaviour. Research had shown that although 92% of people would offer their organs only 27% of people actually signed up to the register.  

They said qualitative research by TNS in 2004 identified that the 'Kill Jill' wording and blunt approach in advertising would be successful in tackling public apathy.  They said that approach was reviewed by the Scottish Transplant Group and Donor Families and, although a minority of stakeholders were apprehensive, they had decided to go ahead with the approach.  They said between 2004 and 2007 they had used the 'Kill Jill' campaign on billboards, press ads and even during face to face activity in shopping centres.  They said that for the first time there was a significant response from Scottish people and they signed up over 108,000 people and outperformed the rest of the UK by a factor of three.

They said the campaign was awarded a Gold IPA Effectiveness Award in 2007 and on the back of that success they received additional funding to take the message and the same creative approach onto television so they could reach as many people as quickly as possible. They said the ad had been on air in Scotland since the beginning of March and they therefore believed the number of complaints did not indicate that the ad had caused widespread offence.  They said they had noted a 400% increase in calls to the Organ Donor Register in the first few days that the ad was on air, which they believed was a promising sign that the public had responded positively to the campaign.

The Scottish Government said the ad was not misleading, because a direct correlation existed between the number of people on the register and the number of organs available for transplants.  Those transplants saved lives and over 700 people in the UK died every year because of the shortage of organs.  They said they did not expect viewers to take the ad literally; the character of Jill was metaphorical and was played by an actress in the ad.  They believed the vast majority of consumers understood the figurative nature of advertising.  

They said the point raised by the second complaint was unfortunate but was impossible to predict or prepare for and was outside an advertiser's control.  They said they had programmed the airtime of the ad to minimise the risk of children seeing the ad but because of the direct response imperative behind the campaign they were using day-time spots to try and generate calls.

Clearcast said they had discussed the ad at length at the clearance stage.  They said they had noted that organ donations fell short of the organs required to help save lives and considered that, although the ad contained a strong message, it was justified in that context.  They said the figures provided by the Scottish Government showed that the claim in the ad was not misleading, because without donated organs people did die.  They also pointed out that the claim at the end of the ad "register and you could save a life" was not absolute.  They said they had also considered the visuals and content from a scheduling point of view and had concluded that the ad was not suitable for young children; the ad therefore had an ex-kids timing restriction.  They said they considered that timing restriction was sufficient to avoid widespread or significant offence and upset to younger viewers.  Clearcast said they recognised it was unfortunate that one complainant was called Jill and that the ad had distressed her son.  They said they regretted any upset caused by the coincidence of the name Jill but they considered that the ad was unlikely to cause widespread concern.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted many of the viewers objected to the claim "Kill Jill", because it implied that people who did not sign up to the register were choosing to kill someone.  

We considered, however, that most viewers were unlikely to interpret the claim literally and would understand the ad was intended to highlight that by signing up to the register they could save someone's life, which was made clear in the statement "register and you could save a life".  We noted the ad was hard-hitting and referred to a difficult and sensitive subject matter, which could be upsetting for some.   We considered, however, that in the context of the important message the ad was promoting, the ad was unlikely to mislead, cause serious or widespread offence or undue distress.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleadingness), 6.1 (Offence), 6.4 (Personal distress) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the ad had been given an ex-kids restriction, which helped to prevent it being seen by very young children when they were watching programmes specifically designed for them, but allowed the ad, which contained an important message, to be seen by as many viewers as possible. We acknowledged that the complainant's son had been upset by the ad.   We considered, however, that the images used in the ad were unlikely to distress the vast majority of children.  We noted the phrase "Kill Jill" was used only once.  We accepted that some children might find that reference distressing but considered that most children were likely to be in the company of an adult who could explain it to them.  We considered that the ad was unlikely to cause undue fear or distress to children.  We considered that it was not necessary to impose a greater restriction to direct the ad away from all children and concluded that it had been appropriately scheduled.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.4.6 (Children - Distress) and 7.4.7 (Children - Use of scheduling restrictions) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)