ASA Adjudication on Coca-Cola Great Britain

Ad

A TV ad for Diet Coke showed the singer Duffy coming off stage. An assistant handed her a can of Diet Coke and said "You've got about two minutes okay?" Duffy took a sip of coke, climbed onto a bicycle and cycled through the night along quiet streets and into a supermarket. As she cycled she sang, people she cycled past joined in the song. She returned to the concert in time to perform her encore. The on-screen text stated "hello you".

Issue

1. 18 viewers challenged whether the ad could be seen to condone behaviour prejudicial to health and safety, because Duffy was not wearing reflective clothing and did not have lights on her bicycle.

2. 4 viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it risked emulation by children.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. Coca-Cola Great Britain (Coca-Cola) said the ad was not meant to reflect reality.  They said it was meant to be Duffy's fantasy, a scenario that depicted her escape from the pressures of stardom and far removed from the real world.  They said they wanted to show her taking that journey in a way that would not be possible in real life.  

Coca-Cola said they went through a vigorous process early in production to ensure they met the criteria set by the Highway Code in terms of riding a bicycle on public roads.  They said current Highway Code regulations stated that it was advisable to wear reflective clothing in the dark when riding a bicycle. They said that Duffy was wearing a black and white sparkly sequined top that reflected light shone on it, gave her a luminous glow when she passed under light and stood out in the dark. They said Duffy's bicycle had lights on the front and rear in each shot.

Clearcast said that they had advised Coca-Cola that appropriate health and safety should be observed during the pre-production process. However, they also said they understood the concept of freedom or escapism was important to the overall feel of the ad and that if Duffy was seen donning a helmet and reflective clothing the ad would be anchored in reality rather than fantasy.

2. Coca-Cola said they would not target any marketing of any of their drinks to children under the age of 12 years. They said the ad did not risk emulation by children because the content and tone of the ad was targeted primarily at a female audience aged 20 and upwards.

Clearcast said that on viewing the finished ad they considered it sufficiently removed from reality to approve it with an ex-kids restriction, meaning it could not be transmitted in the breaks immediately before, during or immediately after children's programmes. They emphasised that the ex-kids restriction would prevent emulation by viewers too young to understand the fantastical nature of the scenario depicted in the ad.  

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted Coca-Cola and Clearcast's comments. Although the bike lights were not clearly visible in all shots of the bike, we considered that the transition from the concert, with the realistic sound of the crowd suddenly cut off as the cycling sequence began and replaced with a dreamy vocal track, set the cycling sequence apart from reality. Furthermore, we noted Duffy was shown cycling along empty roads and round a supermarket whilst performing her song, a scenario we considered most viewers would understand was unreal and fantastical.  Because of the fantasy context, we concluded the ad did not condone behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.  

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.7 (Health and safety) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the ad had been given an ex-kids restriction, which meant it could not be shown immediately before, during, or immediately after childrens programs.  We considered the style and treatment of the ad, with its muted tones and relatively long takes was unlikely to appeal to very young children, and older children would understand cycling round a supermarket was not a realistic situation.  We concluded the ad was not irresponsible.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 7.4.2 (Physical harm) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)