NSPCC 42 Curtain Road London EC2 8NH Number of complaints: 18

Date: 22 November 2006 Media: Television Sector: Non-commercial Agency: Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising

Ad
A TV ad for a national children's charity showed a man entering a bedroom to make sure that the woman inside was asleep, before opening the door of the room of a young girl, who watched anxiously as he entered.  He said "Hi" as he closed the door behind him.  He stepped forward into the darkness so that only his face could be seen.  A noise came from somewhere in the room and as he looked around a person dressed in a rabbit costume appeared out of the darkness; the noise, of people running, became louder.  Many more people, wearing costumes and numbers, appeared and it became apparent that they were taking part in a fun run.  As they ran past they knocked and bumped into the man and he eventually fell to the floor.  The girl looked on as more people ran past.  A voiceover stated, "Every month we need to raise seven million pounds from fundraising and monthly donations.  However you choose to give, together we will make child abuse stop.  Full Stop."  Text on the screen showed details of how to contact the NSPCC for further information and the charity's logo.

Issue
1. Eight viewers said that the image of the runner in the rabbit mask was frightening for children, and believed the ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching;

2. Other viewers said that the depiction of the man entering a room in a sinister way was frightening for children who did not understand the context, and believed the ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching.

3. Other viewers said that children who could understand the context of the ad would be disturbed and concerned about innocent parental behaviour.

BCAP TV Advertising Code:	7.3.1;7.3.7;7.3.6
BCAP Rules on the Scheduling of TV ads:	4.2.3

Response
The National Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and Saatchi & Saatchi (S&S) said they took all complaints very seriously. They said the ad was designed to mobilise the adult population of the UK to become active participants in the mission to end child cruelty by either giving their time or their money in support.  

The NSPCC and S&S said research in 2005 had shown that people believed their contribution, whether it was time or money, would not make a difference; they explained that this ad was intended to combat this impression by conveying that a person's actions in preventing child abuse would make a difference.  They explained that they needed to build a widespread conviction that child cruelty could be stopped and that this would not be possible unless their advertising resonated on an emotional level with the viewing public.  

The NSPCC and S&S explained that the campaign, like every NSPCC campaign, had gone through a qualitative research process with children, young people and adults to try to ensure it would not cause distress or harm.  They explained that the research groups were mothers and fathers, with children under 11 years old and between 11 and 16 years old, and children and young people. They said all groups believed that sexual abuse was the appropriate reference for an ad about child abuse and no concerns had been raised about either the content or tone of the ad.  

The NSPCC and S&S said they took extra time filming and editing the ad to ensure that the look and tone was not dark or too menacing for children and this was verified by the all the research groups' positive responses to the campaign. They said the complaints received were from a small percentage of the viewing audience and asserted that they did not reflect the views of the majority.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they had advised S&S at the script stage that if the visuals seemed menacing then it would be likely that the ad would receive a late timing restriction. They explained that when the ad had been viewed and discussed by their Copy Committee, it was decided that an ex-kids restriction was suitable because, although the setting in the home made it real and uncomfortable, the ad was not as upsetting as some previous NSPCC ads which had attracted a later timing restriction.


Assessment
The ASA acknowledged that child abuse was a sensitive subject and that it would always be distressing to some people.

1. & 2. Not upheld
The ASA noted all the complainants were either parents or grandparents and, from the information provided by the complainants, only one very young child had been frightened by the image of the runner in a rabbit suit and by the man. We considered that children's sensitivities and responses to imagery varied and, although some children between 7 and 11 years of age had also been upset by the images, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause distress or harm to children. We also noted the ex-kids restriction helped to prevent the ad being seen by very young children when they were watching programmes specifically designed for them, but allowed the ad, which contained an important charitable message, to be seen by as many viewers as possible.

On points 1 & 2, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.3.1 (Mental harm - Children), 7.3.6 (Children - Distress) 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions), 11.3.4 (Charities - Ethical responsibility) and under CAP (Broadcast) rules on the Scheduling of Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.


3. Not upheld
The ASA noted all the complainants who objected on this point had children, or grandchildren, aged between 10 and 14 years of age. We understood that people could feel uncomfortable viewing the ad, especially if it prompted an explanation to a child about child sexual abuse during family viewing. Nevertheless, we considered that children's sensitivities and responses to disturbing facts of life would vary and, although some children may have been concerned temporarily over innocent parental behaviour, the ad was unlikely to cause distress or harm to children.  

On point 3, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.3.1 (Mental harm - Children), 7.3.6 (Children - distress) 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions), 11.3.4 (Charities - Ethical responsibility) and under CAP (Broadcast) rules on the Scheduling of Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find it in breach.



Action
No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)