ASA digs deep and talks about charity ads
Introduction
‘Distressing’, ‘upsetting’, ‘inappropriate’, ‘offensive’ – these are the types of words that members of the public often use when contacting the ASA to object to advertising campaigns that they think have crossed the line of taste and decency. Mostly, it is ads that that could be considered harmful to children or feature sexual or violent themes that generate these types of complaints.
If you were asked to think about charities, what would be the first thoughts to enter your mind? Good causes? Fundraising? Raising awareness of important issues? It is unlikely that your initial response would be to associate them with offence or distress. But, when it comes to advertising, charities can provoke a significant emotional reaction from the public.
The bulk of the ASA’s work involves responding to complaints about misleading advertising. Such ads normally attract one or a handful of complaints. But ads relating to taste and decency tend to receive a great deal more. The Advertising Codes contain clauses that prohibit ads from containing anything that is likely to cause harm or offence. Judging what is and is not offensive is a subjective matter and one that can prove tricky for the ASA to adjudicate on - particularly if the ad is in support of a good cause.
Charity advertising can be a real force for good: it can educate, mobilise and empower people in extraordinary ways. But on those occasions where advertisers get it wrong, the ASA is ready to make sure the public is protected.
Shock value?
Of all the sectors it is perhaps the charitable one that turns most readily to the use of ‘shock’ tactics in advertising. Consequently, charity advertisers, pressure groups and not-for-profit organisations can find themselves treading the fine line between adhering to the rules and overstepping the mark. So, how far can they push the boundaries of taste and decency when producing an ad campaign?
There is an unwritten, but generally accepted, rule that charities are allowed slightly more leeway than other advertisers because of what they are trying to achieve. This is certainly something the ASA Council takes into account when considering complaints about a charity ad campaign. It would be one thing for a children’s charity to use stark, violent imagery to raise awareness of child abuse and a completely different one if, for example, a fashion retailer decided to use a similar image. What would that image have to do with their product? Clearly, context is key.
Although charities might have more legitimate reasons for using stark or hard-hitting imagery than other advertisers, they are still bound by the same rules. By using emotive - or even distressing - imagery, the ASA has ruled that charity advertisers can sometimes cross the line of acceptability - irrespective of the importance of the issue they are trying to bring to the public’s attention.
A fine line
In a crowded marketplace it is easy to understand why advertisers attempt to shout loudest and why this can involve pushing the boundaries. But advertisers should be mindful that the complaints their campaigns can generate are real and often deeply felt.
Provoking a reaction to an ad obviously means that it has had an effect. But the nature of some of the complaints the ASA receives about charity ads, suggests that some advertisers should question whether their charity ads are having the desired effect. And the ASA has a duty to take complaints seriously.
All in the name of charity?
The ASA recently received and investigated 842 complaints about a TV ad for Barnardo’s that was designed to raise awareness about domestic child abuse. The strength of feeling expressed through those complaints was considerable. Viewers said the repeated scenes of violence and drug-taking were offensive and that the ad was unsuitable to be seen by children. The ASA was particularly sensitive to the fact that a number of viewers had reported being abused as children.
After careful consideration, the ASA did not uphold the complaints. Even though it could be seen as shocking, we concluded that the aim of the ad justified the use of such strong imagery. In addition, the ad had been given a scheduling restriction that kept it away from time when children were likely to be watching.
So how effective was the campaign? That is not for the ASA to answer. But interestingly, we continued to receive complaints and comments following the publication of our decision. Even though the ad did not breach the rules, the sentiments expressed in those letters would suggest that, regardless of whether the ad achieved its aims, it polarised opinion resulting in the loss of some goodwill and sympathy along the way.
Fear and distress
When the ASA is considering complaints one of the crucial factors it takes into account is the audience that is likely to see the ad. Advertisers should take particular care when targeting their messages that children are not exposed to anything that might be harmful or upsetting.
Save the Children ran into trouble with the ASA with a mailing designed to highlight the mortality rate of third world children. The envelope showed a close-up of the eyes of a child of African origin and text on the front stated "If you have brown eyes, you’re more likely to die young." We were concerned that it could cause undue fear and distress to young children who saw it.
Doing it for the kids?
Any ad that features or is about children requires advertisers to take special care. Given that a lot of major charities are established to protect children and raise awareness about important issues like child poverty and child abuse, it is perhaps inevitable that the subject matter of their ads can offend some sensibilities. But this in itself will not necessarily be cause for the ASA to find an advertiser at fault.
For instance, when the NSPCC produced a mailing for ChildLine to raise awareness about child abuse, the ASA received complaints that the mailing was misleading, irresponsible and would cause undue fear or distress. The mailing contained a mock counsellor log sheet and a letter. The log sheet included handwritten details of three calls to ChildLine which detailed the abuse that the callers had reported suffering.
When judging whether the ad was in breach of the Code, the ASA Council had to balance any discomfort that the subject of child abuse may cause with the worthwhile purpose of raising awareness of it. The ASA also considered that individuals who had suffered abuse might welcome the work of the NSPCC and the intention of the ad.
Although the ASA did not consider that the ad in itself was offensive or likely to cause distress, it did consider that there was a problem because it was not immediately clear that the material was advertising. In particular the ASA felt that the envelope could have stated up front that is contained advertising and the advertiser had not been careful enough to clarify that the log sheet was not genuine. Therefore the ASA judged that the ad could cause fear and distress and was misleading. The ASA welcomed the NSPCC’s willingness to amend it.
No such thing as bad publicity?
Does it pay for advertisers to produce a deliberately provocative campaign in the knowledge that it will generate a high level of complaints to the ASA, which can be used to generate press interest, thus raising a charity’s profile? The ASA would never condone such an approach. As well as eroding consumer trust in advertising as a whole, causing serious or widespread offence can be a short term strategy for an advertiser. Upheld rulings can be expensive: the campaign will have to be removed or amended; the ASA can prohibit media space to the worst offenders, and require future material to be pre-vetted. Perhaps even more importantly to a charity is that they risk alienating those whose support they seek: the public.
Charity advertisers also have to consider the reputation of their sector as a whole. In 2007 the ASA received 577 complaints about charity ads, reflecting the general trend for complaints figures. But, in 2008 we received 1,453 complaints about charity ads - over half of which were about the Barnardo’s campaign. Just one high profile ad can cause a dramatic spike in the number of complaints for a sector and ultimately risk casting charity advertisers in a bad light.
Obviously the public’s tolerance of challenging images and themes in ads is much higher when they are being used to raise awareness for a good cause. Public goodwill for charities is even expressed in complaints to the ASA. It is not unusual for a complaint about a charity ad to contain a general statement of support for the cause or organisation in question.
Health of a nation
Campaigns to raise awareness about health issues such as the dangers of smoking, sexual diseases or debilitating illnesses can often use shock tactics to prompt action. For example, the rising level of obesity in the UK - and all its associated health problems - is a topic that is regularly visited by charities in the hope that they can jolt the public into living a healthier lifestyle.
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) works to highlight the risks that poor diet, smoking and inactivity can have on heart health. Despite the creditable aims of their advertising campaigns, it has not stopped people lodging objections with the ASA about the hard-hitting nature of some of their ads.
A recent BHF poster featured a young girl drinking directly from a 5 litre bottle of cooking oil, which was spilling out of her mouth, down her chin and neck to highlight the amount of fat we consume. The headline stated "What goes into crisps goes into you." The ASA received complaints that image could encourage children to emulate the behaviour. However, the ASA felt this was unlikely and did not uphold the complaints.
Similarly, a BHF poster that was designed to make people aware of the warning signs of a heart attack, so they would know when to call 999, prompted some people to call the ASA instead. The complainants thought that the ad - which depicted a man who was being crushed by a tightly-fastened belt around his chest - was offensive, distressing and unsuitable to be seen by children.
When considering whether or not there were grounds for an investigation, the ASA weighed up the hard-hitting image in the ad with the importance of encouraging people to seek assistance if experiencing chest pains. The ASA did not launch a formal investigation because we felt it was acceptable in the context of the health message and, overall, was unlikely to cause undue distress to children.
It was perhaps unsurprising that when The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) touched upon the highly sensitive subject of child abuse in order to promote vegetarianism that the ASA received a number of complaints. 68 people objected that the poster, which featured a child biting into a burger with the text “Feeding kids is child abuse”, was offensive and distressing, trivialised child abuse, was irresponsible as it encouraged parents to withdraw meat from their child’s diet and misleadingly implied that eating meat could lead to obesity.
Although the ad carried an “anti-meat” message the ASA decided parents were likely to understand that if a food is withdrawn from a child’s diet the nutrients that food provided should be replaced. We also judged that whilst some might find the wording PETA had chosen inappropriate the ad did not trivialise child abuse or mislead consumers.
Although the ASA did not take action in these cases, we are sensitive to public opinion and will closely monitor complaints levels in future to make sure we strike the balance.
Conclusion
So, when is it ok to cause serious or widespread offence in a charity advertisement? The short answer is, never. Although shock tactics can be effective at raising awareness about important issues by jolting the public into action, there is a difference between being provocative for the sake of it and using a justifiable hard-hitting approach. Being remembered for the wrong reasons could result in negative publicity for a charity - and might not engender charitable feelings amongst the public.
A lot of charities use advertising to create memorable and innovative campaigns that motivate people to help others or stand up and be counted. But the subject matter charities deal with, by their very nature, means that some people might feel a degree of discomfort when confronted with those issues.
It is not the ASA’s intention to act as a censor and we are sensitive to many charities’ arguments that shock tactics are worth it if their ads help save a life, increase donations or raise awareness of an important issue. However, charity ads that provoke complaints on the grounds of taste and decency are subject to the same rules as all other advertisements. The ASA is here to protect consumers. And advertisers that do exceed prevailing standards of taste and decency will not find the ASA in a charitable mood!
To access key ASA adjudications on charity advertising click here:
Read the ASA’s background briefing on charities and pressure groups.
Read ASA consumer warning about bogus charity collections.