Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and three were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for a holiday provider showed a group of holiday-makers in a sunny location queuing to board a Thomas Cook coach. A man walked to the rear of the coach and crouched down beside the wheel. He then proceeded to pull the valve out of the tyre with a pair of pliers. The action was shown being observed by a child and several adults, one of whom called, "Hey! What do you think you're doing?!" The man smiled as he walked away from the coach, which now had a flat tyre, as the voice-over stated, "Holidays you won't want to return from." A number of people, including the coach driver, rushed towards the affected tyre, whilst a couple on board the coach looked on. In the final scene, the man was shown plunging into a swimming pool.
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction, which meant it should not be shown in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.
Issue
The ASA received 118 complaints.
1. Sixty-nine viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because it condoned or encouraged crime or anti-social behaviour.
2. Seventy-two viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because it was likely to condone or encourage behaviours prejudicing health and safety.
3. Twenty-three viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and likely to cause harmful emulation among children.
4. Three viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive, because it showed actions which might lead to a traffic accident and would cause serious offence to victims of coach crashes and their relatives.
Response
Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd (Thomas Cook) said they had sought to make an original, amusing and light-hearted ad which captured, in an imaginative and creative way, the desire expressed by many of their customers that their holiday did not end. They stated that around 87% of adults in the UK would have seen the ad and, whilst they stressed that they took all feedback seriously, they considered that the number of complaints received by the ASA therefore represented a very small minority of viewers. They said they had analysed the feedback about the ad that they had received on social media platforms and found that, for every negative remark, many more people had made positive comments. They provided examples of some of the feedback posted to their Facebook and Youtube pages.
1. Thomas Cook said they would not condone the behaviour displayed in the ad, and they believed the comical context of the scene was clear to viewers. They believed that many TV ads used potentially criminal or anti-social behaviour to make a point, but that their context could make it acceptable or even amusing. They argued that the actions of the man letting down the coach tyre were not condoned in the ad; rather, one of the other holiday-makers called out in alarm "Hey! What do you think you're doing?!" and immediately showed the driver what had happened, whilst the people sitting on the bus looked concerned. Thomas Cook stated that viewers would identify that the man's actions were improper and potentially illegal, but considered that the tongue-in-cheek nature of the ad meant it clearly did not condone crime or anti-social behaviour.
Clearcast said the whole tone of the ad was light and comedic, and that was reinforced by the music and the final scene showing the protagonist diving into the pool. They described it as being in the style of "Carry On" films, portraying a man so desperate to extend his holiday that he was prepared to go to any lengths. Clearcast asserted that the ad did not in any way endorse his actions, but rather showed him being admonished by the people around the bus. They stressed that the ad was not meant to encourage any kind of anti-social behaviour.
2. Thomas Cook reiterated their view that the behaviour of the man letting down the coach tyre was not condoned in the ad, for the reasons noted in point 1. They further stated that there was no risk to the passengers' health or safety, and pointed out that the coach was stationary, the actions witnessed by onlookers and the driver immediately alerted to the incident, so the coach would not be driven away. They explained that all of their coach suppliers had to comply with local laws and regulations and follow guidance produced by the UK Federation of Tour Operators. They said coach operators, as well as their own transfer representatives, were required to make appropriate checks on vehicles before the commencement of a journey. It was, in their view, improbable that a flat tyre would go unnoticed and even less likely that a coach would be able to move off with a flat tyre.
Clearcast stated that they did not consider it likely that the actions of the protagonist could be copied, and that it would in their view be extremely difficult to pull out a tyre valve with a pair of pliers.
3. Thomas Cook said the horrified and outraged reaction of the other holiday-makers in the ad indicated that the behaviour of the man letting down the tyre was not condoned. They stated that, because the ad clearly showed a comical scene and the man's actions were immediately challenged as being wrong, they did not consider that the ad was irresponsible. They noted that the man was shown using pliers to deflate the tyre and said it was highly unlikely that children would have unsupervised access to pliers, and even less likely that they would have pliers with them on a package holiday. They also pointed out that the ad showed the man straining to remove the valve and said it was therefore obvious that a considerable amount of strength would be needed to emulate the act. They asserted that many TV ads depicted potentially harmful acts which might be emulated by children but, because of the context in which they were presented, were acceptable for broadcast. They noted that, in any case, an ex-kids timing restriction had been applied to the ad as a precaution, which meant it was not shown during children's programming.
As noted in point 2, Clearcast did not consider it likely that the behaviour shown in the ad could be emulated and thought it would be extremely difficult to pull out a tyre valve with a pair of pliers. They stated that, to be sure, they had attributed an ex-kids timing restriction to the ad, which they felt would avoid its being seen by younger children who would possibly not understand the humour of the ad.
4. Thomas Cook did not consider that the actions shown in the ad might lead to a traffic accident, but that it in fact implied an opposite outcome. They noted that the coach was stationary; that the man acted in full view of everyone present; and that the flat tyre was brought to the attention of other passengers and the driver by the woman challenging him. They said the message of the ad concerned a delay caused to a journey by the flat tyre, and the inference was that the coach would not be able to depart and the man would continue to stay at the hotel. They did not believe that any wider interpretation of the ad was reasonable. They stated that the vast majority of people who had provided feedback on the ad clearly appreciated that the circumstances were not real and that the coach would not drive away. They noted that none of the complainants had themselves been victims or relatives of victims, of coach crashes and said the ad had been interpreted by the complainants to a much greater level of detail than it would be by most viewers.
Clearcast noted that the coach was not moving when the tyre was deflated, nor was it shown moving after the valve was removed. They therefore did not consider the actions shown would lead to a traffic accident.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the ad showed a man pulling the valve out of a coach tyre with a pair of pliers. Although we understood that deflating a vehicle tyre was, in the real world, likely to constitute criminal damage and could amount to anti-social behaviour, we considered that the overall way in which the ad by depicting the man's overwhelming desire to extend his holiday, presented the incident as a fantasy. As a result, it did not condone crime or anti-social behaviour. We also noted the reaction of the other holiday-makers, including the disapproving tone of the woman who called out, "Hey! What do you think you're doing?!", which we agreed acted as a foil to the behaviour shown. We concluded that the ad was not irresponsible because it did not condone or encourage crime or anti-social behaviour.
On that point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 1.2 Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society. (Responsible advertising) and 4.9 4.9 Advertisements must not condone or encourage violence, crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour. (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
A number of the complainants were concerned that tyres on coaches and other commercial vehicles were inflated to a higher pressure than standard car tyres, and stated that emulating the behaviour shown could lead to serious, or even fatal, injury. Others considered that deflating the tyre could lead to a road accident if it was not noticed by the driver.
We contacted the Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (VOSA) and the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) for information about coach tyres and the likely consequences of partial or full deflation in the manner shown. VOSA advised that the front tyres of coaches and other heavy commercial vehicles were inflated to around 120 psi, whilst the pressure of the rear tyres was typically 80–100 psi. They said that was three to four times greater than the pressure to which car tyres were inflated and the larger volume of air under pressure in a commercial vehicle tyre increased the energy involved. They explained that the correct way to remove a commercial tubeless tyre valve was to remove the valve core from the valve stem using a specific too, and to then let the tyre deflate. They considered it would not be possible for the valve stem to be pulled through the wheel rim by hand force applied directly to the valve stem as shown in the ad, because the base of the valve stem in commercial tyres was usually reinforced with metal due to the high pressures involved. However, they said a pair of pliers could be used to snip through the upper part of the valve stem, which was made of rubber and if that were done the detached head of the valve could be projected violently outwards by the escaping air. They also stated that loose debris, such as flakes of rust from the wheel rim and, in cold weather, ice from within the tyre, could be propelled with considerable force through the valve aperture even when the tyre was correctly deflated. VOSA said there was a significant possibility of eye injury from this occurrence, but described the typical consequences as being painful rather than dangerous.
VOSA further stated that an unsuccessful attempt to remove the valve stem using pliers in the manner shown could damage the stem in such a way that it leaked, causing a slow loss of pressure and the eventual deflation of the tyre. They stated that in that case the vehicle stability and road holding would be gradually affected without the driver necessarily being aware of the problem and the outcome might be a loss of control of the vehicle.
The HSE advised that tyre pressures in excess of 100 psi were used on commercial vehicles, in comparison with a typical car tyre pressure of 30 psi. They said they knew from experience that commercial tyres had considerable stored energy and that the sudden release of that energy (such as resulting from tyre failure) had resulted in fatalities. They stated their view that it was not good practice to show someone removing a tyre valve from an inflated tyre with pliers and commented that, although they did not consider it likely that a tyre would fail when the valve was removed, the valve itself could be ejected at high speed with the potential for injury.
The BCAP Code prohibited the inclusion in ads of material which was likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health or safety. We noted that commercial tyres were inflated to much higher pressures than standard car tyres and understood that they were usually deflated by professionals using specific tools. We also noted that, whilst VOSA thought it unlikely that the exact behaviour shown in the ad could be successfully replicated, both they and the HSE considered that an attempt to do so could result in the projection of the tyre valve, or a part of the valve, at high speed and that that event could result in injury. We acknowledged that the behaviour shown, if replicated by a viewer, could be harmful to both their own health and safety and that of others. However, as noted in point 1, we considered that the ad clearly presented a fantastical situation. Because of its light-hearted tone and the disapproving reactions of the other holiday-makers, we concluded that the ad was not irresponsible as it did not condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.
On that point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 1.2 Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society. (Responsible advertising) and 4.4 4.4 Advertisements must not include material that is likely to condone or encourage behaviour that prejudices health or safety. (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.
3. Upheld
The BCAP Code stated that ads must contain nothing that could cause harm to persons under the age of 18 and must not condone, encourage or unreasonably feature behaviour that could be dangerous for children to emulate. Although we were satisfied that adults would not view the ad as condoning the act of removing the tyre valve, we considered that children, including teenagers, were unlikely to identify the fantastical nature of the story. We also noted that the scene in which the tyre valve was removed was central to the ad's narrative and, because of the risks to children in emulating that action, considered that the ad unreasonably featured that behaviour.
We noted that an ex-kids restriction had been applied to the ad, which meant it should not be shown in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children. We also noted Thomas Cook's opinion that children were unlikely to have unsupervised access to pliers. Although we agreed with that point in relation to young children, we considered that older children, particularly teenagers, would be more readily able to emulate the behaviour shown, because they were more likely to have seen the ad and to be able to gain access to that type of tool. Because of the ad's focus on a behaviour which could be dangerous for children, including older children, to emulate and because we considered that the ad would be understood by children as condoning that behaviour, we were not satisfied that the ex-kids restriction, or any later timing restriction, was a sufficient precaution to prevent the possibility of causing harm to children. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules
1.2
1.2
Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society.
(Responsible advertising),
4.1
4.1
Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18.
and
5.2
5.2
Advertisements must not condone, encourage or unreasonably feature behaviour that could be dangerous for children to emulate. Advertisements must not implicitly or explicitly discredit established safety guidelines. Advertisements must not condone, encourage or feature children going off alone or with strangers.
This rule is not intended to prevent advertisements that inform children about dangers or risks associated with potentially harmful behaviour.
(Children).
4. Not upheld
We noted that the ad did not show the coach moving away, but rather that the inference to the viewer was that it would remain where it was, because in the final scene the man was shown continuing his holiday. Although we acknowledged that some people might be distressed by the thought of others emulating the behaviour shown and the potential consequences of that action, we considered that it was clear that the specific events in the ad centred on a delay to a coach journey and that viewers would understand the coach was not going to move off. We therefore concluded that, in that context, the ad was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On that point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 4.2 4.2 Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.
