ASA Adjudication on Mytxt.co.uk Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for a text message service, featured three young women wearing lingerie. They were surrounded by red heart-shaped balloons and were sending text messages from their mobile phones. A voiceover stated "It's nearly Valentines Day and Flirtal.com is here. A great new mobile social network service for girls and guys. Chat and flirt with whoever you choose. Simply send your postcode to 67000. See who's online right now. Get in touch with new people with Flirtal.com and have a special Valentines Day this year. Check out great offers for new users, text your postcode to 67000, that's your postcode to 67000. Make this Valentines one to remember. Flirtal.com, have you tried it yet?"

Issue

Three viewers complained that the ad was:

1. offensive and

2. inappropriate to be shown at a time when children could be watching.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

1. Acumen Partners (Acumen) responded on behalf of Mytxt.co.uk Ltd.  They said the ad showed some young women wearing lingerie and others wearing party dresses in what they described as 'party mode'.  They said there was no depiction of sex or nudity that viewers could reasonably consider offensive.  Acumen believed the ad was fun and flirtatious but did not go so far as to be sexual or erotic.

2. Acumen pointed out that Clearcast approved the ad with an 'ex-kids' restriction, which meant that it could not be shown close to specific children's programming or programming where there might have been a significant proportion of children in the audience.  They said the complainant referred to the ad being broadcast in the 17:59 break on the E! Channel and audience data indicated that there were no children viewing at that time.  They also pointed out that the ad break was at the end of a program called The Playboy Mansion, which supported their view that the ad was properly scheduled.

Clearcast said ads for premium rate telephone based 'chat' services automatically attracted a minimum 'ex kids' timing restriction.  They believed that the ad was flirtatious rather than sexually provocative and maintained that they judged it to be similar in style to previously approved ads for the same type of service. They did not believe that a further timing restriction was necessary.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the ad featured several girls dressed in lingerie and appearing to text on their mobile phones. We acknowledged that some viewers might find the ad and such a 'chat' service distasteful.  However, we considered that, although the girls' behaviour was likely to be regarded by viewers as flirtatious, it was unlikely to be seen as provocative or sexual.  We therefore concluded that 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 ad had been broadcast during programming unlikely to have been watched by children.  We considered that the ad was relatively harmless but that some parents would find it inappropriate in either childrens programming or family viewing time.  We therefore considered that an ex-kids restriction was sufficient.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 7.4.7 and CAP (Broadcast) TV Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)