ASA Adjudication on Take Two Interactive Software Europe Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for the release of Grand Theft Auto IV (Cert 18) in association with Microsoft Xbox. The ad showed a man walking towards the viewer with the background scene and his clothes changing frequently. In the background there were several scenes of people firing guns and cars exploding. Towards the end of the ad, the man broke into a car by smashing the window and then drove away. The final shot featured the XBox 360 logo and the price of the console as £159.99.

Issue

1. Ten viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive and harmful, especially to children and young people under 18 years of age, because it condoned violence and criminal behaviour.

2. Seven viewers complained that the ad was scheduled inappropriately because it could be seen by children. Two viewers pointed out that the ad was shown during televised European football matches, which, they believed, were watched by audiences with a large number of children and young people.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. Rockstar Games London (Rockstar) maintained that the ad contained nothing that could cause serious offence. They believed the content of the ad was clearly fictional in that the action took place between computer generated characters and the mayhem was largely peripheral, occurring mainly in the background. Rockstar pointed out that only eight viewers complained out of an estimated total audience of 41 million. They believed the sort of action shown in the ad was no more violent than might be expected in an ad for an action film.

Rockstar pointed out that rule 6.2 of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code indicated that 'theatrical' violence, for example, the mayhem common in action/adventure films was generally acceptable. They maintained that Grand Theft Auto IV was an action videogame and should therefore be judged to similar standards. Furthermore, they believed videogames had an added degree of separation from reality because they did not feature photo realistic representations. They considered that the graphics were cartoon-like in style. Rockstar pointed out that the accompanying notes section to rule 7.4.1 stated that scenarios that were clearly comedy or drama did not generally cause problems in relation to "mental harm".

Clearcast said the ad merely focused on the hero as he walked down a street. They maintained the action in the background was cartoon like and over-the-top as a graphic representation of a popular computer game, which was in its fourth version. Clearcast acknowledged that stealing a car was a criminal act but believed its depiction in the ad was extremely unlikely to encourage emulation in viewers or cause widespread offence.  Clearcast believed, had the ad been for a film, viewers would not have complained. They said numerous film ads that contained violent images had less stringent timing restrictions.

2. Rockstar said the demographic information obtained for the Manchester United versus FC Barcelona football match indicated that over approximately 89% of the audience for that match were aged over 20 years and that the figure for the Glasgow Rangers versus ACF Fiorentina game was 91%. They pointed out that both matches had an overwhelmingly adult audience and, as such, it was appropriate for the ad to be shown during the ad breaks. Rockstar believed some of the viewers who complained had mistakenly understood the games with an 18 rating were prohibited from being shown before 9:00 pm. They pointed out that CAP (Broadcast) Rules on Scheduling of Advertising did not contain such a prohibition.

Clearcast said the game Grand Theft Auto IV carried an 18 rating.  They said they automatically gave games with 18 ratings an "ex-kids" restriction and they therefore were not shown around programmes made specifically for children.  In addition there was a warning to broadcasters for sensitive scheduling because the game was available for only adults to buy.  Clearcast said they took extra care with Grand Theft Auto IV ads because previous ads that contained scenes of gang fighting, car jacking and graffiti spraying had been investigated following complaints from viewers. They had considered that the current ad contained no violent scenes and was not threatening in tone.  They also believed it did not glorify the trappings of a gangster lifestyle.  They had nonetheless taken a cautious approach and had given the ad a post 7:30 pm restriction.

Clearcast maintained that the football matches cited by the complainants were watched by a predominantly adult audience and pointed out that the ad breaks also featured ads for beer and other alcoholic drinks appropriate to that viewership. They said although they regretted that two viewers had complained about the ad's inclusion, they believed that that was not representative of the vast majority of the viewing public. Clearcast maintained that the post 7:30 pm restriction limited the number of young people who would see the ad.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the ad featured several interlinked background sequences of explosions and violence as the main character walked through the foreground to the climax where he broke into a car.  We also noted the main character did not engage with the background sequences and, in any case, they did not depict inter-personal violence or graphic scenes of injury. We considered that viewers were likely to regard the background scenes as dramatic action sequences associated with the game and they were unlikely to be seen to condone violent behaviour.  We also considered that the sequences shown were relatively mild and fleeting and were therefore unlikely to cause harm to children by condoning violence. Although we noted the ad's climax featured a depiction of car crime, we noted Clearcast had given the ad a post-7:30 pm restriction, which reduced the number of unaccompanied children and young people who might see the ad.

We acknowledged that some viewers might object to the themes of the actual game itself. However, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or harm by condoning violence and criminal behaviour.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.2 (Violence and cruelty) and 7.4.1 (Harm and distress) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the Grand Theft Auto IV game carried an 18 rating and had been given a post-7:30 pm restriction by Clearcast.  We also noted the specific viewing figures cited by Rockstar, which indicated that, even during the football matches referred to by the complainants, adults made up the vast majority of the audiences. Furthermore, we considered that, although some viewers may object to the nature of the game, the ad itself did not feature sequences that were likely to have a direct harmful influence on children or young people. We concluded that the ad had been appropriately scheduled and the post-7:30 pm restriction was sufficient.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 7.4.7 (Use of Scheduling Restrictions) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)