ASA Adjudication on Burger King Ltd

Ad

Three posters and an internet ad promoted a burger chain.

a. One poster showed an image of a burger next to text that stated "KING TASTY". Smaller text stated "BK ANGUS. TASTE IS KING" next to the Burger King logo.

b. Another poster was the same, but stated "KING DELICIOUS".

c. A third poster was the same, but stated "KING GREAT".

d. An internet audio ad, played on the music streaming site Spotify featured a conversation between a traffic warden and a motorist. The motorist said “Oh officer don’t give us a ticket, I was just getting some king lunch.” The traffic warden said “I can see that and it looks king good.” The motorist said “Yeah it’s the new three cheese Angus from Burger King. King delicious.” The traffic warden said “That’s a lot of king beef and cheese for sure, but I’m sorry there’s no king parking here.” The motorist said “But I was only gone for a king minute.” The traffic warden said “Tell you what, give me that king burger and we’ll forget about it. You can park on King Street and go back to the king restaurant.” The motorist said “Huh, what a king pain.” and drove off. The traffic warden called out “Don’t forget your king seatbelt, sir!” A voice-over then described the burger being advertised and stated "King tasty."

Issue

52 complainants objected to the ads because they felt that the use of "king" in the ads was a reference to a swear word.

1. 48 complainants challenged whether ads (a), (b) and (c) were offensive.

2. 13 complainants challenged whether ads (a), (b) and (c) were unsuitable for children to see.

3. Nine complainants challenged whether ad (d) was offensive; and,

4. Six complainants challenged whether ad (d) was unsuitable for children.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2. Burger King Ltd (Burger King) said they were surprised and disappointed that the campaign had caused offence. They said they took their responsibility very seriously and rigorously screened all ad concepts. They explained that the purpose of the campaign was to promote a new burger and to remind customers of their commitment to serving the best tasting burgers bar none. They said they had deployed a simple creative device to do so, in which the word King from the brand name was inserted into the sentence to denote greatness, e.g. "King Tasty", etc. They said that they had used the same device for the past year, across a range of media, to promote their King Deals value menu. They said their goal had been to make the word King synonymous with superiority and, in so doing, to create a powerful and inextricable link with the Burger King brand.

3. & 4. Burger King said that, in line with their media strategy, they had bought ad space only targeted at adults (18-to-34-year-olds).

Spotify stated that the audio ads on their service were age targeted, and that the ad (d) was delivered only to listeners aged 18 or older, which ensured that children would not hear the ads. They said they had not received any direct complaints from their users.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the image of the burger and the word "KING" could be understood to represent the advertisers name, but acknowledged that some readers might infer that the burger also represented a swear word and considered that that association might be distasteful to some readers. We noted, however, that the posters did not feature any explicit bad language.

Although we considered that the ads were likely to be seen as distasteful to some, because they did not include any explicit bad language, we concluded that they were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency), but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted that the ads did not include any explicit bad language and considered that it was unlikely that younger children would interpret the image of the burger to represent a swear word, or that they would understand that interpretation of the ads. Although we acknowledged that some older children might infer that the burger represented a swear word, rather than the advertisers name, we considered that most children were unlikely to associate the burger image with bad language. Because the ad did not feature an explicit swear word, but an image of a burger, we concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause harm to children.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency), but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We understood that the ad was delivered to adults aged 18 and over on Spotify and noted it contained a familiar yet comic situation, in which a traffic warden was prepared to ignore a parking offence in exchange for a motorists Burger King burger. We noted that the ad contained a number of references to "king" and considered that those could be interpreted to represent a swear word, but that, in most instances, that reference also related to the advertisers name. Although we acknowledged that some listeners might find the ad to be in poor taste, because it was a comic scenario directed to an adult listenership and because it did not include any explicit swearing, we concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency), but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

We understood that Spotify was a subscription service and that users had to provide a date of birth when registering and confirm that they were 18 years of age or older, or 12 years of age or older and had received their parents or guardians consent to subscribe. We understood that Spotify targeted ads according to the age of its users and that the Burger King ad was only delivered to users who were registered as being 18 or over. We therefore considered that the advertiser had ensured there were adequate restrictions in place to avoid the ad being delivered to under 18-year-olds.

Because we considered the ad was unlikely to be heard by children, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or harm to children.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)