ASA Adjudication on Aston Manor Brewery Company Ltd
Aston Manor Brewery Company Ltd
173 Thimble Mill Lane
Birmingham
B7 5HS
Date:
13 June 2012
Media:
Internet (OM 3rd party), Internet (on own site)
Sector:
Alcohol
Number of complaints:
1
Agency:
CST
Complaint Ref:
A12-188705
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated of which three were Upheld.
Ad
Videos on the Frosty Jack's YouTube page promoted a cider drink.
a. An internet video ad, titled "Anti-wasp", featured a man killing a wasp with an aerosol and lighter.
b. A second internet video ad, titled "Anti-Gimmicky" featured a man talking about the features of his car in a comically exaggerated fashion.
c. A third internet video ad, titled "Anti Busybody. Anti-controversial", featured a man parking in a disabled space. When questioned by another man he said that he had Tourettes and shouted "Twat".
Issue
A member of Alcohol Concern's Youth Alcohol Council challenged whether:
1. ad (a) was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18, because it showed a person behaving in an adolescent or juvenile manner;
2. ad (b) was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18; and
3. ad (c) was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. – 3. Aston Manor Brewery Company Ltd said it was not their intention to appeal to under 18-year-olds with the Frosty Jack's online presence, whether via the website, their Facebook page or YouTube channel. They said those strategies were the work of the previous marketing department and that brand activity had been reviewed since the arrival of a new marketing team in November 2011. They said the decision to take down the Frosty Jack's website and to change the communication of the brand was made before they were notified of the ASA complaint and, once they were aware of the complaint, the videos in question were immediately removed from the YouTube site and therefore from public view. They said the brand would be re-launched in the coming months and they intended to move away from the previous approach. They stressed that they did not intend to use any of the items in the complaint as part of their future marketing for the brand and none of the website content would be featured on the new site. They had also temporarily removed the Frosty Jack's page from Facebook. They said they had removed ads (a) to (c) from public view.
They said the Frosty Jack's website required visitors to complete the age verification form before they could access the home page. They said the Frosty Jack's YouTube page was created in 2009 and the majority of the content was uploaded before autumn 2010, which was before the ASA's remit was extended to cover digital marketing. They understood that the content posted at the time was considered by the then marketing team to ensure that it met with all the industry guidelines associated with the placement of content that made reference to alcoholic drinks. They said the majority of videos on the site, including ads (a) to (c) were videos made by members of the public and uploaded on to YouTube, which had been in place for over two years without complaint. They said it had never been their objective to appeal to under 18s and pointed out that ads (a) to (c) did not mention Frosty Jack at all.
Assessment
The ASA noted that the ads did not feature the product or the advertisers' branding and that it was user-generated content. However, we considered that because the videos were clearly featured on the Frosty Jack's YouTube page, they were marketing material promoting the brand. We noted that the advertisers did not intend to use the videos as marketing material in the future and would withdraw the ads.
1. Upheld
We noted that the ad featured a young man killing a wasp with an aerosol and lighter, whilst smiling. We considered that the ad showed a person behaving in a juvenile and cruel manner. We noted that the ad did not portray the young man drinking or consuming the product, but considered that the action in the ad displayed irreverent and 'laddish' behaviour. Although we did not consider that the ad would appeal to all, we considered that that action was likely to appeal particularly to young people.
Because we considered that the juvenile and irreverent behaviour in the ad would appeal particularly to young people, including those who were under 18 years of age, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.14 (Alcohol).
2. Upheld
We noted that the character's monologue described his car and lifestyle in an exaggerated and boastful way, which did not match the modest reality which viewers could see in the video. We considered that the character's immodest monologue about his car played on his apparent lack of self-awareness and relied on a stereotyped characterisation of a misguided young man. In light of that, we considered that the ad's content, and the type of humour it used, was likely to appeal particularly to young people.
In light of the type of humour and stereotyped characterisation that the ad used, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.14 (Alcohol).
3. Upheld
We considered that the action in the ad relied on mocking someone who had simply pointed out that the parking space should be reserved for the disabled, and that the protagonist subsequently pretended to have Tourettes to insult that person. We considered that that type of humour was irreverent and juvenile and, although we did not consider that that approach would appeal to all, we considered it was likely to appeal particularly to young people. We also considered that the ad trivialised a neurological condition which affected children and adults, and that the action in the ad could be seen to reinforce negative stereotypes in relation to Tourettes. We also considered that the ad suggested that it was acceptable for anyone to use a disabled parking space, rather than recognising that it was a space reserved for those with disabilities.
We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.14 (Alcohol).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form.
