ASA Adjudication on Take Two Interactive Software Europe Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for a computer game called "Bully: Scholarship Edition", showed a schoolboy in a headmaster's office. The headmaster said "Ah, so you must be Hopkins. You're quite the nastiest little boy I have ever encountered" to which Hopkins replied "I'm just trying to fit in". Hopkins was then shown kicking a wooden box apart, firing a catapult and shielding himself from a burning substance in a science classroom. The ad went on to show students running away from a mouse and Hopkins emerging from a locker, creeping around the school and skateboarding. Two other characters were shown lifting another student up by his underpants. Hopkins kissed a girl and watched the canteen chef laughing and sneezing into a cooking pot. A voice-over stated "Bully:Scholarship Edition. Rated BBFC 15."

Issue

1.  Several viewers, some of whom had experienced bullying, complained that the ad was offensive and distasteful.

2. Most viewers complained that the ad glorified, trivialised and encouraged bullying and violence.  Some of them were concerned that the ad gave the wrong message in the current climate of bullying, suicides and violent crime amongst young people.  

3. Some viewers complained that the ad was scheduled inappropriately because it could be seen by children.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Take Two Interactive Software Europe Ltd (Take Two) said the ad was no longer running and there were currently no plans to air it in future.  They said they were aware of the advertising codes and considered themselves to be responsible advertisers.

1. Take Two said the ad showed one brief glimpse of two characters lifting another character by his underpants but the scene was obviously comic in nature and was no worse than might be shown in a children's cartoon.  They suggested that the game's title, Bully: Scholarship Edition, might have contributed in part to the offence caused, and that many of the complaints were directed against the name and contents of the game itself rather than the ad.

Clearcast said they approved a very similar ad for the game "Canis Canem Edit", in October 2006, and that Bully: Scholarship Edition was an enhanced version of that game that was available on different gaming consoles.  They said the only bullying depicted in the current ad was the scene where a boy was being lifted by his underpants, which they had approved in the ad for the first game.  Clearcast said the scenarios seemed to depict a school from the past when catapults were the most dangerous weapons in the playground and the school cook was an intimidating, unhygienic figure who dispensed pessimistic wisdom about life.  Headmasters were strict disciplinarians and rebuked pupils by calling them "nasty little boys" and older pupils' ideas of bullying went only as far as the hackneyed idea of lifting people  by their underwear.   They believed the ad was no more distasteful or offensive than the ad for the previous incarnation of the game, and agreed with Take Two's view that it had attracted complaints because of its name rather than any depiction of cruelty or harm.

2. Take Two argued that the ad did not glorify, trivialise or encourage bullying.  They said the scene where a boy was lifted by his underpants was obviously a comic scene, because in reality underwear could not be stretched to that extent.  They maintained that the larger boys in that scene were portrayed as unintelligent brutes, as evidenced by the noises they made and the ad did not therefore glorify or encourage bullying as to do so would require that the "bullies" be shown in a positive light.  Take Two believed sensationalist coverage of the actual game had coloured complainants perception of the ad.

Clearcast said, far from glorifying bullying, the aim of the game was actually to beat the bullies.  They believed the characters were not shown in a sympathetic or glorified light.  They said the one scene of actual bullying did not encourage violence and the aim of the game was to stamp out that activity.  They argued that the bullies were shown as contemptible characters dressed in the style of "Jocks", as the American educational system would label them, with the association of stupidity that went with that stereotype.  They maintained that the tone of the ad was not threatening, and the depictions of chemistry class explosions, practical jokes with a mouse and clichd characters like the headmaster, the cook, the bullies and the new boy in school were old themes more akin to Billy Bunter and Grange Hill.  They said the ad did not reflect contemporary problems such as happy slapping, drug use, knife crime or recent tragedies involving guns in schools.  They believed adolescent viewers were unlikely to wish to emulate the scenes. They felt the ad had attracted attention more for the name and supposed content of the game, than for the ad itself.

3. Take Two said the ad was given an "ex-kids" scheduling restriction by Clearcast and was therefore not aired during children's programming.  They explained that both they and their buying agency had carefully reviewed each individual spot on the TV schedule and, wherever the suitability of a programme was in doubt, they obtained demographic information for that programme.  If up to 30% of the audience was under 15 years of age, the ad was moved from that slot.

Clearcast said when they approved the previous version of the game they had considered that the shot of the character being lifted by his pants, along with another scene where a bully was seen bending a pupil's wrist, needed a post 7.30 pm restriction, because those two scenes combined required more than an ex-kids restriction.  They said the physical violence of the boy's wrist being bent had been the more problematic of the two scenes as it showed actual physical harm.  Clearcast pointed out that the current ad showed only the underpants scene; they noted this had been approved previously and there had been no complaints about it.  Clearcast said they believed the action and theme were in line with previous rulings and that an ex-kids restriction was therefore sufficient.  They noted Take Two had taken great care in the scheduling of the ad and had erred on the side of caution whenever the suitability of a programme was in doubt.

Assessment

1.   Not upheld

The ASA noted scenes that depicted property being damaged, a weapon being fired, and pupils fleeing were played in quick succession.  Although some viewers might see those actions as the work of a bully, we noted the only scene that showed bullying behaviour was where two larger boys lifted a character by his underwear.  We considered that that scene was cartoon-like in nature, and would be seen as representative of the contents of the game, rather than as a realistic portrayal of intimidation or bullying.  We concluded that, although many might find the name and content of the game to be in poor taste, the content of the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

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.

2. Not upheld

We noted the character of Hopkins was not intended to be a bully and would often be tasked with overcoming bullies.  We considered that the ad did not contain explicit or graphic violence and that young people would see the lifting of a boy by his underpants as comic and exaggerated, rather than as realistic or condoning intimidating behaviour.  We also considered that viewers were unlikely to draw a direct analogy between the computer-generated, stereotyped school setting and contemporary society.  We concluded that the ad did not glorify or encourage bullying and violence among young people.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.2 (Violence and cruelty), 7.4.1 (Mental harm), 7.4.2 (Physical harm) and 7.4.3 (Bullying) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted the game carried a 15 rating and the ad had an 'ex-kids' restriction, which would help prevent younger children from seeing it.  We noted the advertiser had taken care to schedule appropriately through the extra measures it had taken to ensure that the ad was not seen by a significant number of under-15s.  Although some complainants reported viewing the ads in prime-time programmes and football matches, we considered that the ad was unlikely to present a problem if seen by older children and adolescents.  We concluded that the ad had been appropriately scheduled and the 'ex-kids' restriction was sufficient.

On this point, we investigated the ad under 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of Advertising rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No action was required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)