ASA Adjudication on Shock & Soul

Ad

A regional press ad, for a vintage clothing store, appeared in the Islington Gazette. It showed an elderly lady about to cross a road, carrying bags of shopping. Text superimposed on the lady stated "Silk Dress Coming Soon". Further text stated "SHOCK AND SOUL VINTAGE CLOTHING".

Issue

The complainant thought the ad was offensive, because it implied the lady would not be alive for much longer, and her clothes would soon be available to buy at the advertised shop.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Shock & Soul said the ad ran for a short time over the Christmas period, solely in the Islington Gazette. That publication was chosen to target local people. They had no further plans to advertise at the current time.

They explained that the ad was intended to be humorous and to promote the vintage nature of the clothes on sale in the store. They believed most people recognised that vintage clothing would have been worn before by someone who was likely to be older and might even have passed away. The ad's purpose was to break down any reservations customers might have about wearing vintage clothes, and they saw humour as a key device to achieve that.

Shock & Soul said there was a suggestion that the elderly lady in the ad might not need the silk dress in future, but argued that the ad did not state that the lady was about to die, and the reason why the dress might no longer be needed was left to the reader to decide. They suggested it could be because of a clear-out of belongings, which might in turn be caused by 'home downsizing', illness or even death.

They believed the ad did not suggest the lady in the ad was in any immediate danger of death from a road traffic accident; they pointed out that the ad did not feature any traffic. They also believed the lady's mobility was not being ridiculed in any way; she was merely standing at the side of the road, waiting to cross it.

They said they had no intention to cause any offence, but thought the fact that the ad had attracted only one complaint meant serious or widespread offence was not caused. They had received no complaints direct.

The Islington Gazette believed the ad was cryptic and ambiguous; it was not offensive in any visually obvious or literal sense, and its meaning was open to interpretation. Nevertheless, they said they could understand the complainant's point of view and believed some readers might have found the ad offensive. They said the ad contained undesirable innuendo and should not have appeared in their publication; they would not wish to offend any of their elderly readers by running ads they might see as condescending. They said the ad's publication was an oversight and apologised. They had not, however, received any direct complaints.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA considered the ad presented a joke which was not overt, and its meaning might be overlooked or not understood by some readers. Those who did engage with it were likely to view the ad as suggesting that the lady's clothes would soon be available to buy at the advertised shop. Because she was elderly, we considered the ad went further than merely suggesting that she would no longer be in need of the dress in future; the implication was that she would die soon. Although the joke was morbid, and likely to be considered tasteless by some, we considered the ad did not make fun of infirmity, lack of mobility or illness and did not associate any particular negative characteristics or stereotypes with elderly people. The joke was impersonal because it related to the fact of death, not to traits of character. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)