ASA Adjudication on Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd

Ad

Three posters for Tango.

a. The first poster stated "TOO MUCH TANGO Made me suck a Bull's UDDER".

b. The second poster stated "Too much TANGO MAKES YOUR GUFFS 'Smell Like Oranges' Seriously, I just did one".

c. The third poster stated "TOO MUCH TANGO MADE ME SHAVE MY NAN. INNIT".

Issue

The ASA received 82 complaints.

1. Most of the complainants thought ad (a) was offensive, irresponsible and unsuitable for public display, because they believed it suggested oral sex with a bull.

2. Fewer complainants thought the use of the word "guffs" in ad (b) was offensive and the ad was irresponsible and unsuitable for public display.

3. Two complainants, one of whom said the ad implied the shaving of one's vaginal hair, thought ad (c) was offensive, irresponsible and unsuitable for public display.

CAP Code

Response

Britvic Soft Drinks (Britvic) said they went to great lengths to test and research their ads before releasing them to check that they did not cause offence and, on being informed of the complaints, they ensured that ads (a), (b) and (c) did not run again in either outdoor or press media.  Other executions in the same campaign ran in the press for approximately a further month.

They explained that Tango was a soft drink brand known for its cheeky and unconventional sense of humour, which was particularly appealing to their core target audience of 17-25-year-old males.  The rationale for the ads' approach was to convey that Tango delivered an orangey taste hit which had a great impact and could cause side effects.  The aim was to make the side effects humorous by describing them in a fictional and nonsensical way.  They recognised that the ads were not necessarily to everyone's personal taste, but they had tried to entertain their target audience without causing serious or widespread offence.

1.  Britvic said the 'bull's udder' ad, like the others in the campaign, was intended to be light-hearted, weird and funny.  They argued that the ad's premise was complete nonsense, because bulls did not have udders.  They said there was no intention to imply oral sex with a bull and they were concerned about any distress caused to those who had interpreted the ad in that way.  They had carried out qualitative research groups with 17-20-year-old men before producing the campaign, and none of the respondents had interpreted the ad's headline as referring to oral sex with a bull.

2. Britvic believed their target audience particularly appreciated the irreverent sense of humour at play in the 'guffs' ad.  In the knowledge that the ad was a poster and would be seen by people outside their target audience, they used consumer research to guide their decision in choosing the word 'guffs', which they felt was an inoffensive, light-hearted, little-known slang word that also had other meanings, such as 'nonsense'.

3. Britvic said the humour in the 'nan' ad derived from the fact that shaving one's nan was a completely nonsensical thing to do.  They believed the word 'innit' reinforced the humour.  They argued that the ad contained no visual or verbal reference to a specific body part and there was definitely no intention to imply the shaving of vaginal hair.  Britvic thought the more likely interpretation would be the shaving of the face or head.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that most viewers of the poster, including children, would be aware that bulls did not have udders.  We considered that some people might therefore interpret the statement "suck a bull's udder" in a sexual way; however, very young children and other innocent viewers would not.  Despite the possible sexual implications to some, we considered that the ad presented an outlandish and ridiculous scenario as opposed to an explicit reference to bestiality, and any perversity was outweighed by the absurdity of the notion.  We also considered that the bizarre and provocative humour of the ad was likely to appeal to some.  Although the poster was likely to be seen as distasteful to some viewers, we concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as irresponsible, and that it was not unsuitable for public display.

2. Not upheld

We considered that the phrase "makes your guffs smell like oranges" would be interpreted as a reference to breaking wind and was therefore likely to be seen as vulgar by some, but as humorous by others.  Although unedifying, we concluded that the poster was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as irresponsible, and that it was not unsuitable for public display.

3. Not upheld

We considered that the ad was likely to be seen as positing the idea that a side effect of drinking Tango was the urge to shave a hairy, elderly relative.  Because that idea was clearly ridiculous, and because we thought the complainant's interpretation of the ad was unlikely to be shared by others, we concluded that the poster was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as irresponsible, and that it was not unsuitable for public display.

We investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)