ASA Adjudications

Cadbury Trebor Bassett Services Ltd t/a Cadburys
25 Berkeley Square
London
W1J 6HB
Number of complaints: 519
Date:28 March 2007
Media:Television, Cinema
Sector:Food and drink
Agency:J W T

Ad
Four TV ads and a cinema ad for Trident chewing gum.

a. A TV ad showed a black man speaking in rhyme with a strong Caribbean accent.  He was shown on stage, in what appeared to be a comedy club, complaining about the blandness of chewing gum.  A member of the audience gave him some Trident chewing gum.  He appeared so enthusiastic about the taste of it, that he ran out of the club in an excited manner and said "he must tell the whole world".  He was finally shown on a boat sailing past the Houses of Parliament shouting "Mastication for the Nation" through a megaphone.

b. Another TV ad showed the same black man as in ad (a) running along a busy street and shouting about Trident gum in an excited manner.  He then burst into a laundrette and told the people there about Trident gum.  A woman offered him some Trident Splash gum that appeared to make him even more excited, and he then ran out on to the street shouting "Mastication for the Nation".

c. A third TV ad showed a white, middle-aged woman at a women's meeting speaking in rhyme about the Trident gum in a Caribbean accent, when she was supposed to have spoken about late summer chutneys.  She raised up both her arms and shouted "Mastication for the Nation" at the end of her speech.

d. A fourth TV ad showed a white man, at what appeared to be a parrot-fanciers club meeting, speaking in rhyme about the Trident gum in a Caribbean accent.  He raised up his right arm and shouted "Mastication for the Nation" at the end of his rhyme.

e. The cinema ad was identical to TV ad (a).
Issue
1. The viewers, including members of the Ligali Organisation, challenged whether the TV ads were offensive and racist, because they believed they showed offensive stereotypes and ridiculed black or Caribbean people and their culture.

2. One viewer challenged whether cinema ad (e) was offensive and racist, because he believed it promoted the stereotype of black Caribbean people having particular accents and mannerisms.

3. Some viewers challenged whether the TV ads were offensive and insensitive, because "Trident" was the name of the Metropolitan Police's "black-on-black" gun crime initiative.

Response
Cadbury Trebor Bassett (Cadbury) said they took all complaints very seriously.  They explained that Trident gum was an established global brand and for its launch in the UK, into a monopolised market, they had chosen to depict a humorous and tongue-in-cheek "gum revolution".  They said they had used a performer of dub poetry as the revolutionary spokesman because they believed he had a charismatic quality that appealed to the target audience of 16-to-34 year olds.  Cadbury explained that the "gum revolution" was instigated by the dub poet and spread by other people, depicted in ads (c) and (d), once they had been inspired by him to spread the word.

Cadbury said the campaign, which was developed in line with the Cadbury Schweppes' Marketing Code, had gone through a qualitative and quantitative research process, during which they sought views from the general population as well as representatives of the African Caribbean community: they provided summaries of the research and a report from Millward Brown International as substantiation.  They explained that the research had shown people either loved or hated the ads, and that two-thirds of respondents in both groups, when prompted, had found the ads funny, but some had nevertheless found them offensive.  They pointed out that the percentage of the sample who had found the ads offensive, when prompted, was in line with the general population score for previous research performed by Millward Brown, and also that spontaneous comments about offence had been few and limited to the African Caribbean population.  

They also provided research covering the first three weeks of the Trident campaign that showed that there was a decline in the number of people finding the ads offensive and an increase in them being considered fun.  Cadbury believed this was due to a greater understanding of the integrated campaign; they pointed out that, overall their research had shown that consumers now described the Trident brand as adventurous, youthful, playful and distinctive.

Cadbury said Trident gum had been launched in the US in 1964 and was the number two gum brand in the world based on sales in over 30 countries.  They explained that they had spent two years preparing the launch of the product in the UK and that it was coincidence that the Metropolitan Police's 'black-on-black' gun crime initiative had the same name.

1. & 3.  The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they took great care when clearing scripts and ads to avoid offence to viewers, especially when the potential for humour was based on accents and styles of speech representative of a particular culture.  They explained that they had made clear at script stage that there should not be any indication of mockery of dub poetry or the style of speech.  The BACC said they were satisfied that the finished ads had not been designed to humiliate, stigmatise or undermine any particular group and instead contained a humorous juxtaposition of mild stereotypes.

The BACC explained that the name of the product being the same as the Metropolitan Police's 'black-on-black' gun crime initiative was a coincidence. They said they would not have been justified in restricting the use of the product's name in advertising which they believed did not depict black or Caribbean people or their culture negatively.

2.  The Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) said they had received no other complaints about the ad and that they believed the ad was not racist.  They said African Caribbean dialect was well known in the UK, both in comedy and serious form, and that the ad had drawn on this cultural fact.  They also pointed out that the protagonist in the ad used a similar form and style to the award winning poet Linton Kwasi Johnson and explained that, because of this, they believed the ad was not offensive.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA noted both the BACC's and CAA's opinion that the ads were not offensive and did not mock or demean black or Caribbean people and their culture.  We acknowledged that Cadbury had undertaken careful consumer research before the campaign launch and had consulted members of the British African Caribbean community.  However, we noted their research had shown that the ads were likely to result in a polarised reaction from viewers and approximately one in five of the British African Caribbean sample had found the ads offensive.  

We understood, from the complaints we received, that the scenes of the black man's extreme response to tasting the product had resulted in a significant minority of viewers inferring that his exaggerated behaviour and strong accent were a humiliating and negative depiction of black or Caribbean people.  Complainants told us:  "it portrays us as objects to be laughed at"; "this near 'driving miss daisy' degradation of singing songs for the whites sickens me"; "this man's behaviour shows anything but a positive role as a black man"; "it is as if it is laughing at black people who campaign for equal rights" and "depicting times of a Minstrel Show, or where black people used to have to do degrading things to 'entertain' white people".  

We also understood from the complaints that the imitation of the strong Caribbean accent and mannerisms by the white people in ads (c) and (d) had been seen by the viewers who complained to be insulting, derogatory and demeaning to people of black or Caribbean heritage.  We acknowledged that Cadbury believed they had used an up-to-date and authentic aspect of Caribbean culture, dub poetry, to portray the notion of a revolution in chewing gum.  However, we noted from the complaints that many viewers had not interpreted the actions of the main characters, particularly the dub poet, as Cadbury had intended and had been offended by what they saw as the negative stereotype of black or Caribbean people and their culture.  

We noted that the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.6 stated: "Ads must not prejudice respect for human dignity or humiliate, stigmatise or undermine the standing of identifiable groups of people".  The notes to the Code acknowledged that stereotypes can be used to establish characters but that some stereotypes can be deeply insulting to the groups in question and care should be taken not to condone or feed prejudice or perpetuate damaging misconceptions.  The notes went on to state that characteristics such as accent, nationality and colour were regarded to be at the sensitive end of the spectrum of acceptability.

We noted that greater sensitivity was required of advertisers using humour based on accents, because of the potential to cause serious offence, especially if it could be seen to be patronising or demeaning to groups of people who were generally recognised to have encountered prejudice.  We considered that the ads did not incite racial intolerance or discrimination on the basis of race.  However, we also noted the stereotype depicted in the ads had, unintentionally, caused deep offence to a significant minority of viewers and that many of those who complained to us were concerned that the negative stereotype would be perpetuated.  Because of this, we concluded that the ads had breached the Codes.  

On point 1, the TV ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 6.6 (Harmful stereotypes).

On point 2, the cinema ad breached CAP Code clauses 5.1 and 5.2 (Offence).

3. Not upheld
The ASA noted Trident chewing gum was a global brand that had existed for over 40 years.  Although we acknowledged that some people had been upset by the brand name because it shared the name of the Metropolitan Police's "black-on-black" gun crime initiative, we nevertheless concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence on this point.

On point 3, the TV ads were investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.1 (Offence).  
Action
The ads should not be shown again.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

back | top