ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Canon (UK) Ltd

Complaint

Objections to a cinema commercial, for Canon cameras, that showed young men running across city rooftops and leaping between buildings. The accompanying voice-over was a commentary by the photographer, Andy Day; he described his images of 'Parkour' street athletes and how they had been inspired. The complainants, who believed the athletes were teenagers, objected that the commercial was irresponsible, because it glorified a dangerous activity that could be copied by children and teenagers.

CAP Code

Adjudication

Complaints upheld

Canon (UK) Ltd said the men featured in the commercial were aged 20 and 22 years and were professional athletes. They said they had carried out risk assessments, and a stunt co-ordinator and, when necessary, the Metropolitan Police were present during filming. They asserted that the commercial was not targeted at children and did not address them.

They said, following a request from the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA), the commercial showed the participants running on top of buildings; they said the CAA believed that gave the impression that the activity took place in "a fantasy world" and could not be attempted by members of the public because they would not be allowed access to rooftops.

They said the commercial was no longer running in the cinema but said it may run again in the future. They said a television version, that showed participants running on the streets, was running on some European non-terrestrial channels in programme airtime but not in commercial airtime.

The CAA said they had received no other complaints about the commercial. They said they were concerned that the Parkour participants should not be shown at street level. They considered that if the action was shown on rooftops, which they believed were difficult to access, then it would be seen as an extreme activity distanced from everyday life.

We noted the age of the participants in the commercial and the precautions taken by Canon (UK) Ltd. We considered, however, that children and teenagers could, despite the difficulties, access rooftops. We noted the commercial showed city rooftops and buildings and considered that it was unlikely to give the impression that the activity took place in a fantasy setting. We considered that, because it showed young people leaping between city buildings, the commercial glamorised a dangerous practice that could be copied by children and teenagers. We told Canon (UK) Ltd to restrict the commercial to media that could not be viewed by children and teenagers.

The commercial breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 10.1 (Safety) and 47.2 (Children).