ASA Adjudication on Department for Children, Schools and Families

Ad

Two TV ads, for the ‘Why Let Drink Decide?’ campaign, both ended with a voice-over that stated “The sooner we talk to our kids about alcohol, the less chance that drink will start making decisions for them. Why let drink decide?”. They showed children, who spoke about future experiences:

a. The children in the first ad stated “In less than four years, I’ll start going to parties; where I’ll be drinking alcohol; there’ll be stuff going on there that I’ve never seen before; my friends will put pressure on me; I’ll be tempted to do things I know are wrong; I’ll be offered things I should say ‘no’ to”.

b. The children in the second ad stated “In less than four years, I’ll start going to parties where I’ll be drinking alcohol; before I turn fifteen, I’ll be drinking at a party when a boy will pressure me for sex; I’ll be offered things I should say ‘no’ to; my friends will put pressure on me; I’ll be drinking with friends and I’ll be challenged to a fight that could leave me in hospital; a stranger will stop and offer me a lift home; I’ll be at my first gig, where an older kid will offer me drugs”.

Ad (b) was cleared by Clearcast with a post-9 pm timing restriction.

Issue

The ASA received 27 complaints:

1. most viewers challenged whether ads (a) and (b) were likely to cause serious or widespread offence, in particular because they showed children discussing adult topics;

2. some viewers, who thought the ads could cause harm or distress to children, challenged whether ad (a) was suitable to be shown when children might be watching; and

3. some viewers, who thought the ads could cause harm or distress to children, challenged whether ad (b) was suitable to be shown when children might be watching.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

1., 2. & 3. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) said the ads were intended to challenge deeply entrenched behaviour associated with alcohol, parents, children and young people. They were intended to prompt a change in behaviour with the desired outcome of maximising the number of young people who would grow up to have a sensible relationship with alcohol. They said the advertising was informed by a substantial evidence base and insights gathered from the target audience as well as official advice from the Chief Medical Officer for England, who had recently recommended that alcohol-free childhoods were healthiest.

In consumer testing, the ads were felt to be effective in prompting action because of the seriousness of the consequences they highlighted as well as the certainty that those consequences would happen. The audience welcomed the opportunity to take pre-emptive, positive action in response to such issues being raised. DCSF said they were acutely aware that there was a fine balance to be achieved between securing engagement and causing offence. They believed they had achieved that balance, which was reflected in the language used, casting and the timing restriction applied to ad (b). They said no concerns had been raised by broadcasters about the presentation applied to the ad (a), which warned broadcasters to check the suitability of the ad for younger viewers .

Clearcast said ad (a) did not contain any references to drugs or sex; they therefore felt it was sufficient to warn broadcasters to check the suitability of the ad. They said the ad mentioned only that the children might be offered alcohol and referred to them being tempted to do things they knew were wrong; they did not believe that would be upsetting for young viewers. Clearcast said ad (b) was given a post-9pm timing restriction, in line with other ads that feature references to drugs or sex. They said that restriction should keep such references away from younger viewers.

They said both ads were directed at parents rather than at children. They believed the campaign had worthwhile objectives and therefore felt it was important that they were seen by the widest audience possible, subject to timing restrictions. They believed the children in the ads delivered the message in a neutral and calm manner, rather than being sensationalist.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged some viewers were concerned by the ads because they showed children discussing adult topics. We noted however the ads were intended to encourage parents, who were the target audience, to consider the scenarios that could arise when their children were older as well as the importance of discussing those formative experiences in a family setting. We considered adult viewers were likely to understand the seriousness of the message the ads presented and to recognise the need to consider issues related to families, young people and irresponsible alcohol consumption. Although we acknowledged some viewers had found the ads uncomfortable to watch, we considered the content was unlikely to be seen as disproportionate to the seriousness of the message. We concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On point 1, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Code rule 6.1 (Offence) but did not find them in breach.

2. & 3. Not upheld

We noted the complaints we received were from adults, many of them parents. We noted most of the complainants did not state that children had seen, or been distressed by, the ads. We also noted that the message of both ads was targeted at adults.

We noted ad (a) included one reference to alcohol but that it otherwise only alluded to the type of scenario it aimed to encourage parents to discuss responsibly with their children. We considered very young children who saw the ad were unlikely to understand the references it included and, because the children delivered the messages in a calm manner and the references they made were largely indirect, it was also unlikely to cause harm or distress to older children who saw it.

We noted ad (b) included direct references to alcohol, sex and drugs but that it was cleared by Clearcast with a post-9 pm timing restriction. We considered the restriction was sufficient to help prevent the ad being seen by young children, for whom those direct references might be unsuitable. We also considered older children who might be watching would understand the message in the ad and it was therefore unlikely to cause them harm or distress. Because the ad had a post-9 pm timing restriction, we concluded that it was unlikely to cause harm or distress to children.

On points 2 and 3, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Code rules 7.4.1 (Mental harm), 7.4.6 (Distress) and 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)