ASA Adjudication on Volkswagen Group UK Ltd

Ad

Five ads for the Volkswagen Golf.

a. A 100-second TV ad showed the Chief Engineer sitting at his desk working on designs. He got up to open his door and saw another man who was identical to himself. The man punched the engineer in the face and kicked him in the chest. The two men began to fight one another using martial art techniques, as an energetic music sound track started. The engineer then ran to another part of the factory, where he was met by another man identical to himself. They began to fight and punch one another in the face. The engineer ran to the rooftop of the building where he was met by two further versions of himself. They then performed various fight sequences. The engineer ran back into the factory, followed by the three versions of himself, where he was kicked in the stomach and punched in the face. The ad then showed the engineer and one of the identical men using car parts as weapons with which to hit each other. The final sequence in the ad showed the engineer fighting all of the other versions of himself until he had defeated them. A voice-over stated "Sometimes the only one you have to beat is yourself ... The new Golf".

b. A cinema ad was the same as ad (a).

c. Another TV ad was a 40-second edited version of ad (a). The ad featured the initial punch scene and focused on the scenes of the men fighting inside the factory. It included scenes of various punches and kicks, as well as the use of car parts as weapons.

d. Another TV ad was a 40-second edited version of ad (a). The ad featured the initial punch scene and focused on the fight sequence on the rooftop. It included scenes featuring punches and kicks but did not show the men fighting with weapons.

e. Another TV ad was a 40-second edited version of ad (a). The ad showed the engineer being shoved in the chest when he opened his door to the first identical man. The ad focused on the fight sequence on the rooftop and showed punches, kicks and some martial arts fighting. The ad did not show the men fighting with weapons.

Issue

1. Some of the viewers challenged whether ad (a) was offensive and suitable to be shown at times when children might be watching.

2. Some viewers challenged whether ads (c), (d) and (e) were offensive and suitable to be shown at times when children might be watching.

3. Some viewers challenged whether ads (c), (d) and (e) were irresponsible, because they believed they were likely to encourage harmful emulation amongst children.

4. One complainant challenged whether ad (b) was offensive and suitable to be shown before 12A rated and 15 rated films.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Volkswagen Group UK Ltd (VW) said the ads were not intended to condone violence or cause offence in any way. They said the agency had liaised closely with Clearcast in developing the campaign from initial script through to finished commercials.

VW said creative techniques were used in order to distance the action from reality, and to make it clear that the fighting was not gratuitous or to be taken seriously. They said the statement "Sometimes the only one you have to beat is yourself" was the reason for any conflict in the ads. VW said the struggle depicted was metaphorical rather than real, and that the Chief Engineer was confronted by clearly identified mirror images of himself in order to show that. They argued that the action was highly stylised and choreographed, and the production team had used only highly-trained stunt artists. VW explained that the exaggerated, cartoon-like sound effects and actions were designed to dispel the gravity of the fighting. They said, at the end of the ads, the Chief Engineer's opponents simply got up or disappeared, and that no physical harm or suffering was inflicted by the action.

1. Volkswagen explained that the 100-second version of the ad (ad a) ran three times in December 2008, and that, although it had been given a post-7.30 pm scheduling restriction by Clearcast, the ad was broadcast after 11 pm on all three occasions. They said they took that decision for scheduling reasons, not because either they or Clearcast considered the content of the ad to be unsuitable for viewing earlier in the schedule.

Clearcast said they warned the agency that scenes of interpersonal contact always attracted a timing restriction, and advised VW to keep the action stylised, limit the amount of contact depicted and take care with the level of aggression shown between the characters. Clearcast said they were satisfied that, in light of their advice, the ad was acceptable, but acknowledged that there was a significant amount of fighting that was not appropriate to be seen by children, which was why they gave a post-7.30 pm timing restriction to ads (a), (c) and (d). They said they did not believe the ads condoned violence, and in the context of the ads' message of individual struggle, the post-7.30 pm timing restriction was justified.

2. VW explained that ads (c) and (d) were also given a post-7.30pm restriction by Clearcast, which they observed in full. They said the target audience for the ad was adult drivers and the ad had been scheduled to reach them. They said that additional care had been taken to avoid family programming in order to limit exposure to children.

VW explained that ad (e) had been developed from ad (d) following guidance from Clearcast, in order to reach those adults that were not heavy evening viewers. They said, because the fantastical element of the fighting was not established until after the opening scene, they decided to replace the first blow to the protagonist's head with a shove in order to soften the impact of the ad for an earlier viewing audience. They said ad (e) was approved for earlier viewing, but that they had taken care to avoid family programming in the pre-5.30pm schedule.

Clearcast explained that, in addition to the post-7.30 pm timing restriction given to ads (c) and (d) they had given an ex-kids timing restriction to an amended version, which contained significantly less interpersonal contact than the other ads. Clearcast said, in making that decision, they acknowledged that ad (e) did not show any harm caused by the fighting, such as blood or bruises. They said the fighting was stylised and choreographed, which gave it a fantastical feel and distinguished it from a realistic, gritty or urban depiction of fighting.

3. VW argued that they had made no effort to appeal to children in the creative execution of the ads, or through their media selection. They said they believed the complex idea and sophisticated execution of the campaign would appeal to an advanced adult audience, and that the meaning of the ad would not be of immediate appeal to younger audiences. VW argued that, in the context of other film, TV and videogame materials to which children might be exposed, their ads did not stand out as posing any risk of emulation. They said they believed the content was no more unsuitable than the content of the TV programmes during which they were shown. They said the ads were not dissimilar to the levels of action seen in many family TV programmes.

Clearcast argued that the action sequences were fantastical and stylised, and could not be emulated due to their technically difficult nature. They said they did not believe that the ads' message of individual struggle either condoned or encouraged violence.

4. VW said the script for ad (b) had been sent to the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) for script clearance, and to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) for final classification. VW explained that the system of cinema classification allowed for more precise targeting of the ad to the right audience, and that the relevant authorities had deemed the ad to be suitable to be shown before 12A and 15 rated films. They argued that, as the content of some films in the 12A and 15 rated categories could be more violent than the content of their Golf ad, they did not think it was unsuitable to be shown before them.

The CAA said 100-second, 90-second and 60-second versions of the ad had been approved by them, but that currently only the 60-second version of the ad was being exhibited. They said all versions were restricted to screening with 12A, 15 and 18 certificate films, and that the version currently screened had also been given a 12A certificate from the BBFC. The CAA said the restriction had been imposed because of the violent content of the ad and they believed that restricting the screening of the ad to films rated 12A and above would avoid causing either serious or widespread offence. The CAA said the impact of the blows was largely conveyed by sound, and that there was no bruising, blood or real incapacitation. They said they had taken the view that the violence portrayed in the ad was stronger than would be seen in a PG rated film, was directly comparable to that seen in the current 12A Batman films, and was not as strong as that seen in the current James Bond films, which were also classified 12A. The CAA stressed that responsibility for taking a child younger than 12 years to a 12A rated film rested with the accompanying adult. They said they had not received any direct complaints about the ad.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted VW's argument that the fight sequences shown in ad (a) were stylised and fantastical and, along with other aspects of the creative treatment, distanced the action from reality. We also noted their argument that the ad did not show any physical suffering as a result of the fighting. We considered, however, that the opening punch to the Chief Engineer was shocking, and set up a series of violent set pieces that included the use of weapons. We also considered that, despite the absence of blood or other injuries, the punches, kicks and other fight moves were realistic in appearance and involved ordinary people in an everyday setting. We noted Clearcast's argument that the ad had been given a timing restriction because of the level of fighting, which meant that it could not be shown before 7.30 pm, and we acknowledged that ad (a) had not been broadcast before 11 pm. Although we considered that ad (a) was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence in the post-11 pm slots in which it had been shown, we were concerned that, were the ad to be broadcast earlier in the evening, the opening punch and subsequent violence could cause serious offence and distress. We considered that the ad should have been given a timing restriction to ensure that it was limited to later in the evening, and we concluded that the ad was unsuitable to be broadcast before 9 pm.  

On this point ad (a) breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions).

Ad (a) also breached Rules on the Scheduling of Television Advertisements section 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).

We also investigated ad (a) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.1 (Offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted VW's and Clearcast's argument that, because ad (e) had significantly less interpersonal contact, it had been given an 'ex-kids' restriction. We understood that the 'ex-kids' restriction prevented the ad from being broadcast in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children. We noted that ad (e) opened with a shove as opposed to a punch, and that the ad did not feature the men fighting with weapons. We also noted that ad (d) did not show the men fighting with weapons. We considered that the level of interpersonal violence in ads (d) and (e) was less than in the other TV ads, and because of that we did not consider that ads (d) and (e) needed to be kept away from older children. We considered that the post-7.30 pm restriction applied to ad (d) and the ex-kids restriction applied to ad (e) were sufficient to keep the ad away from times when younger children were likely to be watching TV alone, and we considered that ads (d) and (e) were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence when shown in accordance with those scheduling restrictions.

However, we considered that ad (c), which included the opening punch and the men fighting with weapons, featured a level of violence that was comparable to that shown in ad (a), and which could cause serious offence and distress when shown after 7.30 pm. We therefore considered that ad (c) should have been given a timing restriction that limited it to being shown later in the evening, and we concluded that ad (c) was also unsuitable to be broadcast before 9 pm.

On this point ad (c) breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.2 (Violence and cruelty), 7.4.1 (Mental Harm) and 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions).

Ad (c) also breached Rules on the Scheduling of Television Advertisements section 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).

On this point we also investigated ads (d) and (e) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.2 (Violence and cruelty), 7.4.1 (Mental Harm) and 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and Rules on the Scheduling of Television Advertisements section 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find them in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted VW's argument that the ads had not been designed to appeal to children and that they believed the ads' central message of individual struggle did not condone violence. We considered that the Chief Engineer and his opponents were depicted as ordinary people, and whilst we recognised that that might cause offense, we did not consider that those characters or the factory setting in which they appeared would have a particular appeal to children. We also considered that the timing restrictions placed on the ads meant that they were unlikely to be seen by younger children, who would not understand the message of the ad, and that older children who did see the ad would understand the idea that the Chief Engineer was fighting with himself. We therefore concluded that ads (c), (d) and (e) were unlikely to encourage harmful emulation amongst children.

On this point we investigated ads (c), (d) and (e) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.2 (Violence and cruelty) and 7.4.2 (Physical harm) but did not find them in breach.

4. Not upheld

We noted that the ad had been approved by the CAA for screening with 12A, 15 and 18 certificate films and had been given a 12A certificate by the BBFC. We also noted that the cinema ad was not aimed at children but was intended for VW's target audience of adult drivers. We considered that young children were unlikely to see the ad, and that those children under the age of 12 who did see it would be accompanied by an adult who could explain it to them. We understood that some people might find the content of the ad distressing. However, the restrictions placed on ad (b) by the CAA and BBFC meant that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, and we concluded that it was suitable to be shown before 12A and 15 rated films.

We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles) and 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

Action

Ads (a) and (c) must not be broadcast again before 9 pm.

No further action necessary in respect of ads (b), (d) and (e).

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)