Taking responsibility, raising standards
As social attitudes have changed so have the advertising Codes. In the 1960s, tobacco and alcohol were promoted in ways that would not be acceptable today.
Few people now regard smoking as ‘heroic’, so from 1975 to the ban on tobacco advertising in 2003 we kept ‘heroes’ out of cigarette ads. Alcohol ads should not associate drinking with social success.
Equally, advertising to children is controlled by specific rules designed to prevent them being exploited for their inexperience and trust.
1975: The Marlboro cowboy no longer features in UK cigarette advertising.
The CAP Code stipulates that advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. As with serious and widespread offence, expectations of social responsibility have changed over time. Advertisers have become bolder to make their point, while consumers have become less accepting of anti-social messages.
Silk Cut (1993): As a result of stricter Codes, tobacco advertising has adopted a more abstract approach.
Advertisers often claim that they are trying to make a point, by deliberately using shock tactics, or that they are trying to challenge traditional assumptions. While such an approach may be intended to provoke thought, it can also shock, or be viewed as socially irresponsible.
Cossack Vodaka (above) and Smirnoff (below) (1970): Both these advertisements would be questioned under today's rules, which forbid associating alcohol with sexual capabilities and sporting achievements.
The 1997 Accurist poster and national press ad which declared: “Put some weight on” resulted in complaints from people who themselves had suffered eating disorders or who had family or friends who had. Despite the advertiser’s insistence that the model was naturally thin, the ASA upheld the complaints, considering that the ad could be seen to be mocking people with eating disorders and portraying being underweight as desirable and therefore advisable
Dangerous ads
While eating disorders have only come to the public’s attention in the last decade or so, the Code has always highlighted particular audiences or products that advertisers need to treat with caution. ASA’s own advertising made the point in 1979, when a campaign was launched with a series of photographs showing children playing in the road, or sitting on the balustrade of a bridge, feet dangling over the edge. The strapline said: “You might see this in real life. But never in an advertisement.”
The ASA's own advertising made the point in 1979: children should not be shown in hazardous situations or behaving dangerously.
Today’s Code reinforces the requirement, that ads “should contain nothing likely to result in children’s physical, mental or moral harm.” Pester power is outlawed too, as advertisements should not actively encourage children to make a nuisance of themselves to parents or others.
To mark the International Year of the Child in 1979, the ASA conducted research amongst children to gauge their reaction to advertising. Whilst the children surveyed proved to be discerning consumers, able to recognise advertisements as such, the research also noted that “their reaction is geared to their age, experience and the content of individual advertisements.” The Code now insists that ads should not exploit children’s credulity, loyalty, vulnerability or lack of experience.
Heroes disappear
Few topics in advertising have led to as much debate as the pros and cons of cigarette advertising. Public opinion has long been sharply divided, between those who believe that what is legal to sell should be legal to advertise, and those who believe that cigarette advertising should be banned.
In 1975 a particular Code for cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco was included in the Code. It stated that advertisements should not incite people to start smoking or encourage smokers to increase their consumption or smoke to excess. This Cigarette Code, and subsequent revisions, meant that previously familiar icons, such as the Marlboro cowboy disappeared from non-broadcast ads in the UK. The cowboy no longer featured as his presence provided a clear association between smoking and an outdoor lifestyle: suggesting a healthy or wholesome life. He was also represented as a heroic figure and this too was forbidden, particularly if such characters featured in advertisements in a way that would appeal to those who are adventurous or rebellious, particularly the young.
As the rules got stricter, cigarette advertising has become increasingly abstract, but even if the product wasn’t shown all cigarette ads had to be pre-approved by CAP’s Copy Advice Team. But despite the success of the self-regulatory rules, the statutory ban on tobacco advertising put an end to its promotion.
Alcohol Agreement
Diamond White (1996): The ASA was concerned that the models in this poster looked under 25 and were acting in a socially irresponsible way - a breach of the Codes.
As with cigarettes, the code of advertising for alcoholic drinks was based on rules agreed by the industry itself and once the strengthened Code was introduced in 1975, an immediate change was apparent. Suddenly, ads that implied sexual success from drinking alcohol, or an unhealthy dependence on alcohol, were outlawed. But the system was faced with a new challenge when advertising of new alcohol brands targeted at young drinkers caused concern. Ads like this one for an alcopop were banned, not only because they showed people acting in an irresponsible way after a night out, but also because the models did not look as if they were over 25 years old – a clear breach of the Code.
World Events
Public attitudes to smoking and drinking have changed radically during the ASA’s lifetime. But public expectations have also changed as the result of particular events. Three separate tragedies that occurred in the UK had a direct impact, not only on the way in which the public view advertising, but also on the Code itself.
In the wake of the Hungerford shooting in 1987, advertising for weapons and particularly those offered by mail order became a matter of government concern. In CAP’s monitoring process, out of more than a quarter of a million ads scanned, 281 revealed some level of problem. As a result of the public’s and the Home Office’s concern the Code was amended to include new rules on violence and anti-social behaviour: “Advertisements for weapons and for items, such as knives, which offer the possibility of violent misuse, should avoid anything in copy or illustration that may encourage such misuse.”
Similarly, the murder of head teacher Philip Lawrence in December 1995 and the Dunblane tragedy four months later provoked strong public reaction, and complaints about violence in advertising soared by 25%. Monitoring by CAP revealed little problem with specific ads but the industry was warned to be aware of public sensitivity about using any imagery that might be seen to provoke or condone violence.
Benetton controversy
Despite this warning, Italian clothes company Benetton pressed ahead with a series of controversial posters, including images of a blood-stained T-shirt with a bullet hole, and the infamous blood smeared baby. Over 800 people wrote in to protest about this advertisement, and the ASA deplored the advertisers apparent willingness to cause distress with their advertising approach.
Benetton (UK) Ltd: The ASA deemed this 1991 poster to be a poor reflection on the advertising industry and ordered the advertisers not to repeat the approch.
Speed Trap
The specific rules in the Code for motoring advertisements reflect the safety concerns addressed by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) Resolution on Advertising that Conflicts with Road Safety Aims, November 1989.
The resolution, to which the UK is a signatory, urges ECMT member countries “to regard as inappropriate any advertising whose content extols performance or power and treats driving as a sport [or] shows scenes evoking motor racing, lightning acceleration and top speeds.” Effective self-regulation in this area is the best argument against statutory controls.