Ad description
A TV ad, which promoted electronic cigarettes, opened with various scenes that depicted young adults who walked or drove through an urban environment. They then began to set up for a party in what appeared to be a disused warehouse. The ad then showed a group of people dancing to upbeat music played by a DJ. On-screen text and a voice-over stated, "Freedom for the taking … blu … E-cigarettes and E-liquids". On-screen text stated "Contains nicotine. 18+ only. blu eCigs & electronic cigarettes are not a smoking cessation product and have not been evaluated by the MHRA".
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
A pharmacologist and eight other complainants, who believed the ad promoted a nicotine-based product to young people, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible.
Response
Cygnet UK Trading Ltd t/a blu Cigs said that although current restrictions inhibited showing e-cigarettes in use, they were able to raise awareness of their product and the ad encouraged adult smokers to consider using blu e-Cigs. They said that e-cigarettes should be marketed and advertised responsibly, but in a manner that did not encourage under-18s to use the product. As such, they believed they had been careful to ensure that their marketing reached a primarily adult audience. They said the ad was shown post-9 pm and the channels that broadcast the ad had audiences with a majority of viewers over 18 years of age. Furthermore, they said all the actors featured were over 28 years old.
Clearcast considered the ad, including the music, was not of particular appeal to teenagers. They said the script had been considered in light of an ASA adjudication which had a similar creative treatment for an alcohol product. They said that they viewed e-cigarette advertising as similar to alcohol ads as the BCAP Code prevented them from having particular appeal to under 18- year-olds and the agency confirmed that the actors were all over the age of 25.
Clearcast said the on-screen text stated that the product contained nicotine and was for over 18-year-olds only. They said the advertiser had included the disclaimer that blu eCigs were not a smoking cessation product and had not been evaluated by the MHRA.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted that advertisers could legitimately advertise e-cigarettes, provided that ads were responsible and compliant with the Code. We noted that the on-screen text clearly stated that the product contained nicotine and considered that in general, consumers over the age of 18 were able to exercise their own reasonable judgement about whether to purchase the product. We considered, however, that it would nonetheless be irresponsible to promote the product to viewers under 18, by having particular appeal to that age-group.
The majority of the ad featured the preparation of a party set-up with young adults who appeared to be in their mid-twenties. We noted that no teenagers featured in the ad which we considered helped to reduce any likely appeal or incentive to purchase the product to that age group.
Scenes toward the end of the ad featured adults engaged in a warehouse party which was one of congenial enjoyment, a usual feature of any type of party. We understood that the complainants' concerns were that such a situation may appeal to people under 18 years of age as it could reflect youth culture. We acknowledged that in some situations a party or club scene may be associated with youth culture. However, in this instance we considered that the scenes were not the main focus of the ad and because the environment and dancing style were quite generic in nature and the camera angles showed little clubbing type paraphernalia, we considered it was unlikely to appeal to those under 18 years of age. We noted that the music, while not quickly recognisable as current or associated with a popular artist did contain electro-type beats which may have had appeal to a young audience. Again we did not consider it was likely to appeal particularly to under 18s due to its generic nature.
We accepted that while the ad was directed at young adults, we did not consider that it would appeal particularly to those under 18 years of age. We therefore concluded it was not irresponsible.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 1.2 1.2 Marketing communications must reflect the spirit, not merely the letter, of the Code. (Responsible advertising), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
