ASA Adjudication on Adams Foods Ltd
Adams Foods Ltd
Sunnyhills Road
Leek
Staffordshire
ST13 5SP
Date:
13 June 2012
Media:
Television
Sector:
Food and drink
Number of complaints:
36
Agency:
Karmarama
Complaint Ref:
A12-196323
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated of which one was Upheld and two were Not upheld.
Ad
A TV ad, for Pilgrim’s Choice cheese, showed a woman opening her fridge door. A male voice behind her said “Easy there, pilgrim.” The woman turned to see a miniature cowboy sitting on the kitchen counter, wiping an oversized cut throat razor on a tea-towel. He proceeded to shave himself with the large blade, wiping the razor across his face and neck, as he spoke to the woman in a low, gravelly voice. The cowboy then jumped off the counter and said, “I’ll let myself out” before running from the room. The end shot showed the cowboy, on his way out through the cat flap, pointing an oversized gun at a cat. He said, “Back off, Mr Wiggles.”
Issue
The ASA received 35 complaints:
1. 24 viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and likely to cause harmful emulation among children, particularly because it was broadcast before 9pm;
2. 17 viewers challenged whether the use of a gun in the final scene was offensive, irresponsible and trivialised gun crime; and
3. 17 viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, offensive and distressing, because it trivialised knife crime and violent behaviour.
BCAP Code
Response
1. Adams Foods Ltd (Adams Foods) stressed that the ad was not intended to cause harm, offence or potentially dangerous emulation by children. They said it was intended to portray a surreal situation with a miniature cowboy talking in a very serious tone about cheddar cheese and that the razor and gun had been deliberately oversized to emphasise that sense of surrealism. They explained that Clearcast had applied an ex-kids scheduling restriction, which prevented the ad from being broadcast in or around programmes directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children under the age of 16 years, in order to avoid the risk of emulation. They said they had nevertheless decided to reschedule the ad to be broadcast only in post 9pm slots having received complaints via their Facebook page.
Clearcast pointed out that the cowboy had used the razor correctly and had not done anything untoward with it or handled it in an irresponsible way. They confirmed that they had considered the ex-kids restriction appropriate given the cowboy’s use of the barbershop razor. They believed the likelihood of child emulation was small with that restriction in place and they confirmed that they did not believe the ad required a greater restriction. They said over 16s would appreciate the humour of the miniature cowboy behaving normally and using normal-sized props and that they would not attempt to copy his use of the razor. They said barbershop razors were not items that were commonly found in households, which again reduced the likelihood of emulation.
2. Adams Foods said the ‘gun scene’ was clearly intended to be humorous because the cat was almost double the size of the cowboy. They did not believe that the ‘gun scene’ was irresponsible given that films, such as 'westerns', were shown at any time of day and frequently showed guns being fired and people being hurt or even killed by them. They said they did not believe the ad had trivialised gun crime or violent behaviour.
Clearcast said the humour derived from the cowboy’s height in relation to the objects around him was carried through to the end scene when he pointed his gun at the cat. They believed it was well understood that cowboys carried guns in the 'Wild West' and they did not believe that the cowboy pointing his over-sized gun at the large cat trivialised gun crime.
3. Adams Foods said the cowboy was seen shaving with shaving foam and a towel because it was morning and that the razor he used was an old fashioned barbershop razor which was in keeping with the 'cowboy' character. They said the ad was not being shown around children's programming and that parents, who could explain to their children that the blade was an old-fashioned razor, were therefore likely to have been present at any time when their children might have seen the ad. They said they did not believe that the ad had trivialised knife crime or violent behaviour in any way.
Clearcast said there were no knives featured in the ad and that they did not therefore believe that the ad could be seen to trivialise knife crime. They reiterated that the cowboy had used his razor in a safe and normal way and had not done anything that could be considered threatening or that trivialised knife crime.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that older children would understand that the scenario depicted in the ad was surreal, because of the disconnect between the cowboy and the modern domestic kitchen in which the ad was set, the size of the cowboy and the manner in which he jumped down from the counter and ran out of the kitchen, leaving the property through the cat flap. We judged that older children would understand the shaving scene and the dangers of handling sharp objects. We did not consider that they were at risk of emulation.
However, we were concerned that younger children might not understand the ad and might find the miniature cowboy character particularly intriguing. Although we appreciated that the cowboy was using the razor to shave, we noted that the razor appeared very large and we considered that young children would not distinguish between the blade of a barbershop razor and the blades of common household objects, such as kitchen knives. We were therefore concerned that young children might mimic the cowboy’s actions using common household objects in a manner that could seriously endanger their health.
We noted the restriction Clearcast had applied. However, that did not prevent the ad from being broadcast around daytime programmes that were not specifically targeted at children and we noted that a number of the complainants had seen the ad when watching TV with their young children during the day. We accepted that the restriction in place meant that children who saw the ad were likely to be supervised by their parents or carer who could explain the potentially dangerous behaviour and emphasise that it should be avoided. However, such was the potential for serious harm that would result from emulation by young children, we considered that the scheduling restriction was insufficient to minimize the risk of young children seeing the ad. We judged that the ad should have been given a 9pm timing restriction to ensure that it was not broadcast at a time of day when younger children were likely to be watching.
Because we considered that the ad could encourage younger children to behave in a way that could endanger their health, and because we considered the scheduling restriction applied was insufficient to minimize the risk of younger children seeing the ad, we concluded that the ad had not been scheduled appropriately.
On this point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and offence), 5.2 (Children) and 32.3 (Scheduling).
2. Not upheld
We acknowledged current concern about gun crime, which was reflected in some of the complaints we received. We considered that the size of the gun, both in relation to the cowboy and the cat at which it was pointed, and the fact that the cowboy was attempting to leave the house using the cat flap reinforced that the ad was surreal in nature. We considered that the cowboy’s statement “Back off Mr Wiggles” dispelled any sense that this was a situation in which the cat was in danger, nor was the scene reminiscent of images that would commonly be associated with gun crime. We did not consider the overall tone of the ad likely to be seen to trivialise gun crime or violent behaviour. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and that it was not socially irresponsible.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 4.2, 4.4 and 4.9 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We acknowledged current concern about knife crime, which was reflected in some of the complaints we received. We noted that the barbershop razor that the miniature cowboy ran across his face and neck appeared very large in relation to him, but we also noted that the razor was being used in the act of shaving and not in a threatening manner. It was not aimed at any other character or out towards the viewer and there was no depiction or suggestion of violence. We did not consider that the impression given by the ‘shaving scene’ was reminiscent of images that would commonly be associated with knife crime and we did not consider that the overall tone of the ad was likely to trivialise knife crime or violent behaviour. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or undue fear or distress and that it was not socially irresponsible.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 4.2, 4.4 and 4.9 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
Action
We welcomed Adams Foods’ prompt decision to reschedule the ad for broadcast only in post 9pm slots, which had been effective since 19 May. In light of that, we considered that no further action was necessary.
