ASA Adjudication on Paddy Power plc

Ad

A TV ad for a bookmaker ad showed a game of football being played by two teams of blindfolded men, using a ball which had a bell inside it. The ad opened with a shot of a kitbag marked “Blind Wanderers FC”, then showed the players mid-game. One player kicked the ball off the pitch and a cat, wearing a bell on its collar, ran on to the pitch and ran across it, with its bell ringing. The referee was about to blow his whistle, but one of the men was shown taking a kick and a thud and loud meow were then heard, although no contact between the player and the cat was shown on screen. The referee dropped his whistle in shock and the players stood around. A man in a suit appeared on the pitch, patted the shoulder of the player who had taken the kick and said “Paddy Power can’t get Tiddles back, there’s nothing we can do about that, but we can get you your money back with our money-back specials” and handed the player some bank notes. The man looked upwards with a quizzical expression and there was a shot of the cat walking along the branch of a tree, meowing. The final voice-over said “Check ‘em out before you bet at Paddy Power …” and the player taking the kick was shown again, in slow motion, and a faint meow was again heard in the background.

Issue

1089 viewers objected to the ad.

1. 220 viewers objected that the ad was offensive to blind people; and,

2. 1070 viewers objected that the ad was offensive and harmful, because it might encourage or condone cruelty to animals.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. Paddy Power plc (Paddy Power) said they always aimed to offer entertaining and innovative campaigns and had taken numerous steps to try to ensure that no offence or harm was caused by the ad. They said the ad depicted a normal event but featured an action that was so unlikely that it was absurd and was a "worst nightmare" type scenario. They said they chose a blind football match as it enabled them to promote and create awareness of a lesser-known sport, in the year in which the IBSA World Blind Football Championships were to take place. They added that a key part of blind football was the use of a ball equipped with a noise-making device and they considered that the ad would enhance appreciation of the skill required by those who participated in the sport. They said the ad was humorous and slapstick in nature and the humour occurred as a result of viewers anticipating the scenes absurd consequence. They felt that it was unrealistic that a cat would run on to a football field at the same time that the ball was kicked off, wearing a bell that sounded identical to the noise-making device in the ball and that the game would continue, with the consequence that a player would mistakenly kick the cat and that cat would end up in a tree. They said that whilst it was true that the humour in the scene was linked to the footballers being blind, the humour and light-hearted nature of the ad was derived from the build-up to a completely unforeseen and unrealistic course of events and was not at the expense of the blind footballers, for whom the general public would gain a greater awareness and admiration from the ad. They provided a letter from the manager of the England Blind Football Team, who supported the ads concept and stated that all the players featured were actual blind football players, many of whom had represented the England Blind Team. Paddy Power said those players would not have supported the concept of the ad if they had found it disrespectful or considered that it portrayed a negative message about either blind people or their sport. They said they had received extremely positive feedback from the blind and partially sighted community.

Clearcast had advised the advertiser that they should seek the view of a charity or organisation that represented the views of blind or partially sighted people. The advertiser did so and Clearcast felt reassured that the England Blind Football Team felt it was a funny script that was supportive of visually impaired sport and therefore felt it would not cause offence to blind people.

2. Paddy Power said the ad did not show the cat being kicked or suffering any violence or cruelty, nor was the cat shown to be in distress at any stage. At the end of the ad, the cat was clearly and deliberately shown to be unharmed. They reiterated that the concept of the ad was to add an unrealistic, absurd, humorous and slapstick element to an everyday-type scene and while the event itself (the blind football match) was real, the situation that unfolded was obviously unrealistic and absurd. They did not consider, therefore, that the humour was built around violence or any attempt to harm an animal. They said the ad made clear that kicking the cat was accidental and was not portrayed as deliberate, fun or something that should be commended; for example, the referee was intentionally shown to be shocked. They said their media buying agency (M2M) had estimated that ten million adults had seen the ad (on average seven times per person) and there had been a lot of press coverage, but Paddy Power had not been made aware of anyone emulating the action. They added that because the ad was for a gambling product and followed the appropriate scheduling rules, it was not aimed at children or shown around childrens programming.

Clearcast said the ad was setting up a jokey, highly unrealistic situation, in the typical tongue in cheek style of Paddy Power ads. They stated that the cat was shown to be totally unharmed at the end of the ad and felt that the ad was made as an over the top joke that would not be taken as a serious situation.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that it was not offensive or disrespectful in itself to create an ad referring to or involving people with a disability. We noted that the ad featured, and was supported by members of the England Blind Football Team, and showed blind people enjoying a game of football. We considered that the action in the ad would be interpreted by most viewers as a humorous depiction of a fictional situation, with the humour derived from the surreal and improbable circumstances, when an unforeseeable and accidental action occurred. We considered it was unlikely to be seen by most viewers as malicious or to imply that blind people were likely to cause harm to animals whilst playing football. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to be seen as humiliating, stigmatising or undermining to blind people and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.6 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the ad was not aimed at children and was not shown in and around children's programmes. We considered the situation in the ad was surreal and improbable. We noted that the action did not directly show any footballers making contact with the cat and furthermore it pointedly ensured that the cat was shown ultimately unharmed, walking on the branch of a tree. We acknowledged that some viewers had not found the ad to be in good taste, but because it was surreal, farcical and light-hearted in tone, we considered it was unlikely to be seen by most viewers as a gratuitous or realistic portrayal of cruel treatment of an animal, or that it would encourage or condone cruelty to animals. We therefore concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.6 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)