ASA Adjudication on PLAN International (UK)Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for the charity PLAN International (UK), featured on-screen text that stated "Sponsor a child today. £12 a month ..." and showed various people in their homes or gardens holding photographs of African children. A voice-over stated " ... How can you help improve the health of some of the world's poorest children and communities? ... Sponsor a child with PLAN for just £12 a month ... give them a chance to shape their own future, get access to life-saving clean water, enjoy a life-changing education ... Children and communities worldwide can build a better future with your help, and you'll see the difference through progress reports and exchanging messages with your sponsored child ...".

Issue

One viewer thought the ad misleadingly implied donors would sponsor individual children, whereas she was told by the charity that donations were put towards supporting whole communities.

BCAP TV Code

Response

PLAN International (UK) (PLAN) argued that the ad's voice-over made clear that the donated money went towards helping "children and communities" to "build a better future". They pointed out that the ad repeatedly referred to children in the plural: " ... protect children from the dangers of dirty water ... make sure that they don't miss out on a proper education ... improve the health of some of the world's poorest children and communities ... help children like these ... give them a chance ...". They said the ad referred to a single child only in the call to action "Sponsor a child with PLAN for just £12 a month", which was immediately followed by the statement "help children like these escape a life of poverty".

A single child was mentioned again in the context of exchanging messages, alongside the reference to children and communities worldwide building a better future. PLAN argued it was therefore clear that by sponsoring a child, respondents would be helping children and communities worldwide. They believed viewers would not infer that donations went to individual children, because they would understand that education, health and clean water could not be provided solely through a handout to an individual child, and that giving money to one child would be unfair and would cause jealousy. They said they had found that the best way to help was by spending money on programmes that benefitted every child in the community, such as building schools, training teachers, installing water systems and establishing clinics with trained staff. The sponsor's money was pooled with all other sponsorship contributions and went towards such projects.

PLAN said the term 'child sponsorship' was widely and consistently used by leading child-focussed charities to mean tracking the effects on an individual child of money spent on programmes in their community, and had been used in that way in the UK and worldwide for 30 years; they believed that was also how the public understood it. They argued that donors did have a personal relationship with one child who benefitted from community projects supported by PLAN: they could choose the gender, country and age of a child with whom they could exchange photographs, letters and drawings. They received annual reports on the progress of the child and the community in which he or she lived. PLAN stated that some donors even paid visits to the named child. They therefore believed donors did sponsor a child.

PLAN said information provided during the sign-up process, and on their website, made clear to prospective supporters how their money would be spent. The 'frequently asked questions' section of their website specifically stated that the money donated did not go to one child alone.

Clearcast said they cleared the ad in 2008. At that time, PLAN confirmed to them that each year donors received an update on their sponsored child, along with photographs and an update on community projects, compiled by local field workers and volunteers. PLAN told Clearcast that donors also received a letter, note or drawing from their child at least once a year, or more frequently if they wrote to the child. The exchanging of messages and information was encouraged. If the child was too young or unable to write, a family member or community volunteer would write on their behalf. Clearcast understood that that procedure was still in place and thought the ad was acceptable on the grounds that donors did have contact with individual children.

Because the ad mentioned helping children and communities, and did not refer to sponsoring an individual child or sponsoring a specific individual, Clearcast believed it was clear that any money donated went to children supported by PLAN.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA considered that viewers were unlikely to infer from the ad that donors would provide direct funding to individual children, because it referred to helping "children and communities" to "build a better future", and because viewers would understand that education, health and clean water could not be provided solely through handouts to individuals. We considered that viewers would understand from the ad that PLAN supported children, communities and community-based projects. In this context, 'child sponsorship' meant a personal relationship, post donation, with an individual child who was benefitting from PLAN's funding in his or her community. In this way, the efficacy of the charity's financial support could be tracked through the impact it had on one particular child with whom the donor communicated. We considered that the meaning of 'child sponsorship' was likely to be clear to viewers and concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.2 (Implications), 5.2.3 (Qualifications) and 11.3.1 (Charities) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)