ASA Adjudication on Pepsico International

Ad

A TV and Video on Demand (VOD) ad for Pepsi Max.

a. The TV ad showed a woman and a man sitting near each other at a bar. The man leant towards the woman and said "Hey, if you need another?" to which she replied "I'm fine". A breaking news story then played on the bar's TV and a reporter said "I can now officially confirm that a huge asteroid is on a collision course with Earth and will destroy all life". The barman began to panic and scrambled along the bar shouting "We're gonna die, we're all gonna die!". The customers then fled leaving only the man and woman at the bar. The reporter then said "Reach out to someone, anyone who's near, show them you love them. Don't be alone". The woman and the man then looked at each other for a moment before she ran towards him and they kissed as they fell to the floor. The ad then cut to the bar's kitchen where the barman and the reporter from the TV were shown in a fake news studio. They were revealed to be friends of the man from the bar as he walked in. The "reporter" asked him "And?", the man replied "Thank you guys, I love you". Music played and all three men were then shown dancing and drinking the product. On-screen text stated “MAX IT!” above a product shot.

b. The VOD ad was the same as ad (a).

Issue

1. 34 viewers challenged whether ad (a) was harmful, because they believed the ad condoned deception as a means of obtaining sex, condoned rape or sexual assault and promoted casual sex.

2. 36 viewers challenged whether ad (a) was offensive, because they believed the ad was sexist, demeaned women and portrayed men as sexual predators.

3. Eight viewers challenged whether ad (a) was suitable to be broadcast at times when children might be watching.

4. Two complainants challenged whether ad (b) was offensive, because they believed the ad was sexist and portrayed women as sex objects.

5. Two complainants challenged whether ad (b) was harmful, because they believed it implied that it was acceptable to use deception to initiate a sexual encounter.

Ad (a) investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 and 6.7 (Harm and offence) and BCAP Rules on the Scheduling of Television Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments Unsuitable for Children)

Ad (b) investigated under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency).

CAP Code (Edition 11)

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

1. Pepsico International Ltd (Pepsico) said they vehemently disagreed with the complaints but apologised for any offence caused by the ad. They said the ad was intended to be light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek and not intended to cause any offence to viewers. They said the theme of men attempting to gain the attention of attractive women was a universal theme of storytelling that frequently featured in broadcast content, including in advertising. They firmly refuted that rape or sexual assault was condoned or implied in the ad. They said no physical force was imposed on the woman, she was not subjected to duress of any nature and was not shown to be incapable of giving consent.

Clearcast said the ad was clearly fantastical and tongue in cheek and was not meant to be taken literally. They said that at no point did the ad suggest that the man and the woman were going to have sex or that it had taken place. They accepted that the men had used deception to initiate the event but believed that most viewers would accept that this was merely a humorous attempt for the man to get acquainted with the woman since his earlier offer of a drink had been declined. They shared Pepsis view that the ad did not condone rape, sexual assault or promote casual sex. While they also disagreed with the complainants they apologised for any offence caused.

2. Pepsico said they did not believe the ad was sexist. They said that everyone in the ad was shown to be taken in by the same ruse and the woman was not singled out or discriminated against on the basis of her gender. They believed the majority of viewers would take the ad in the light-hearted manner in which it was intended and did not believe that it contained concepts which offended against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards or offended public feeling. They believed the ad was in line with other items of content and advertising which were shown to the public.

Clearcast said they did not believe that the ad was offensive, sexist, demeaning or portrayed men as sexual predators or women as sex objects. They believed that the ad was not sexist towards the man or the woman. They said both the man and the woman were dressed in smart casual work wear and seemed to be of similar age and attractiveness. They said the man was clearly attracted to the woman and that the womans actions made it obvious that this attraction became mutual. They said there was no indication that they have been drinking alcohol or were incapable of making rational decisions. They did not believe that most viewers would assume that this attraction would automatically lead to a sexual encounter or assume that one had just taken place. They did not believe the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

3. Pepsico said the ad had been broadcast in line with Clearcasts advice that the ad should not be transmitted in or around programmes targeted at children and did not believe they had breached the Rules on this point.

Clearcast said the ad was given an ex-kids restriction meaning that it could not be shown in or around programmes aimed specifically at young children and believed that this restriction was appropriate.

4. & 5. Pepsico referred to their response to points 1 and 2.

4OD said they had taken informal advice from Clearcast. They agreed that the ad contained mild innuendo and was therefore not appropriate for breaks in, or adjacent to, children's programmes. They said the ad had been shown during Peep Show which was an adult comedy containing strong innuendo and they therefore believed the ad was not inappropriately scheduled.

ITV Player said the ad was scheduled during Murder in Suburbia which was a crime drama and murder mystery and believed the ad was appropriate in that context.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the men used an elaborate ruse, including the staging of a fake news broadcast about the imminent destruction of the world, to entice the woman to kiss one of them. We considered this scenario was obviously fantastical and could clearly not be imitated by viewers. We also noted that the men did not use physical coercion and that the woman did not flee the bar with the other customers, but instead chose to stay behind before running towards the man, jumping on him and initiating the kiss. We therefore considered that she was shown to take the initiative in the encounter, rather than being depicted as being intimidated or acting against her will.

We noted that, although the two were seen kissing and falling to the floor, this was clearly a consensual act between two adults and that there was no nudity or an explicit sex scene. Nor did we consider that the ad suggested that such an encounter would be acceptable in more normal circumstances or that casual sex was acceptable. We therefore concluded the ad was not harmful in the manner suggested by the complainants.

2. Not upheld

We understood that the mans ability to elicit the kiss from the woman was a result solely of the elaborate ruse which he had concocted with his friends and that serious coercion or violence were not used, threatened or implied. We therefore considered that the men were depicted as comedic rather than predatory.

We also noted that all the customers in the bar were seen to fall for the hoax and react by panicking and fleeing. However, the woman was shown to remain calm before taking the initiative to kiss the man. We therefore did not consider that she was depicted as any more suggestible or less intelligent than the other patrons and we did not consider that the ad was sexist towards either her or women in general.

While we considered that some viewers would find the ad distasteful, we concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

3. Not upheld

We noted that the ad had been given an ex-kids timing restriction, which meant that it should not be broadcast in or around programmes targeted at young children.

We noted that the ad did not contain any nudity or sex scenes and considered that the ad was unlikely to be harmful to older children who would understand the faking of a news broadcast, and the ruse in general, to be fantastical.

However, we noted that the ad featured a passionate kiss and dealt with vaguely adult themes such as deception and seduction, albeit in a light-hearted, fantastical situation. We also considered that, while there was no explicit content, the mens back-slapping and dancing at the end of the ad could be seen as suggestive that something more than a kiss had occurred. We therefore agreed that a restriction to keep the ad away from times when younger children would be watching TV alone was appropriate. We did not consider a later restriction was necessary.

4. Not upheld

We noted that the ad appeared on 4OD during Peep Show, an adult comedy which regularly dealt with sexual themes, and on ITV Player during Murder in Suburbia; a crime drama and murder mystery, also targeted at adults.

We considered that the ad was obviously fantastical. Notwithstanding that we also noted that the woman took the initiative with the man and kiss him despite having the option to leave the bar. We considered that it would be obvious to most viewers that she entered into this action willingly and we did not consider that the ad was prejudicial to, or objectifying of, her or women generally.

We considered that viewers of adult comedy and crime drama would have particularly robust sensibilities and, because we considered that the ad was not offensive to the wider adult audience, we concluded that viewers of these programmes specifically were unlikely to be offended by the ad.

5. Not upheld

We considered that the elaborate ruse depicted in the ad was obviously fantastical and we did not consider that it was likely to be imitated or that it promoted more realistic deception. We also understood that the VOD programmes during which it was placed featured content of a more adult nature than that of the ad and we therefore concluded that it would not be harmful to these viewers.

We investigated ad (a) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 and 6.7 (Harm and offence) and BCAP Rules on the Scheduling of Television Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments Unsuitable for Children) but did not find it in breach.

We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)