ASA Adjudication on Ontel

Ad

A regional press ad, for an adult chatline, stated “LIVE CHAT GRANNIES 0XXX XXX" and featured a picture of a naked woman, with stars covering her nipples, who had her hand between her legs. Illegible small print featured at the bottom of the ad.

Issue

1. A reader challenged whether the ad was offensive and unsuitable for a free newspaper, where it might be seen by children.

2. The ASA challenged whether the small print was too small.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Ontel believed the Advertiser newspaper was responsible for ensuring that the ads they published were acceptable under the CAP Code. They said, if the newspaper allowed advertisers to place ads that might give offence to their readers, then the Advertiser should respond to the ASA enquiry.

Top Dog said, based on the number of calls it generated, the ad appeared to have been well received by readers and only one complaint had been made. They said the newspaper had accepted the ad, and similar ads, in the past.

The Advertiser said the ad was unsuitable for their newspaper; they apologised to the complainant for any offence caused. They explained that they had a vetting procedure in place, but acknowledged that, on this occasion, it had failed. They said they had since reviewed their policy in order to ensure that such an error did not happen again.

2. Ontel said PhonepayPlus, the organisation responsible for the regulation of phone-paid services in the UK, dictated the size of small print in ads for phone-paid services. They suggested the ASA contact PhonepayPlus to see if the small print breached PhonepayPlus' Code of Conduct.

Top Dog said, having looked at the size of the small print, they had enlarged the text.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA was concerned that Ontel believed the Advertiser newspaper was responsible for ensuring that the ad complied with the CAP Code. We reminded them that the CAP Code held the marketer primarily responsible for their advertising, and therefore Ontel should have made sure that their ad complied with the Code before sending it to the newspaper for publication.

We noted the Advertisers argument that the ad had been accepted in error and welcomed their assurance that it would not be used again. However, we noted the ad appeared in a free newspaper, which was available for anyone to pick up, including children. Although we noted the ad appeared in the Personal section of the paper, we nonetheless considered that the image of a naked woman in a provocative pose with her hand between her legs, was overtly sexual in nature and unsuitable for an untargeted medium that could be seen by children. We therefore considered that the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some readers, and concluded that it was in breach of the Code.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Decency).

2. Upheld

We noted it was not possible to read the small print in the ad because it was too small. We understood, however, that the small print stated "Reserve The Right To Send Promotional Material. Cost 35ppm. Calls recorded ..." and contained the advertisers address and a helpline number. We considered that the small print contained important information about the service, including the possibility of marketing material being sent to the customer and Ontel's contact details. We also considered that that information should have been made clear to readers. We therefore concluded that, because the small print was illegible, the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)