Kepak UK Ltd t/a Rustlers St George's Park Kirkham Preston Lancashire PR4 2DZ Number of complaints: 219

Date: 2 May 2007 Media: Television Sector: Food and drink Agency: Chemistry Strategic Communications Ltd

Ad
Two TV ads, for Rustlers burgers and chicken tikka naan.

a. The first ad showed a man and a woman entering a flat. The man asked "Can I take your coat?" and the woman responded "Just a coffee". The woman sat down on the edge of the sofa whilst the man went into the kitchen and said "Make yourself comfy". The man typed "70" into a microwave keypad and pressed the start button. The sound of a microwave started and the sofa started to spin around; the man was shown grinning. When the sofa had rotated fully the woman was seen reclining on it, in her underwear, playing with her hair. The sofa stopped turning as the microwave stopped with a 'ping' sound.  A voiceover stated "If only everything was as quick as Rustlers" as a burger was shown spinning round in a microwave. The voice-over and on-screen text stated "Rustlers nought to tasty in 70 seconds."

b. The second ad was identical except for the end; a voice-over stated "If only everything was as quick as Rustlers" as a chicken tikka naan was shown spinning round in a microwave. The voiceover stated "New Rustlers chicken tikka naan" and on-screen text stated "0-tasty in 70 seconds."

The ads were cleared by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) with an ex-kids restriction, which meant they should not be shown in or around programmes made for or specifically targeted at children.  

Issue
1.  The majority of the viewers complained that the ads were offensive, sexist and demeaning to women because they portrayed them as objects for male gratification or equated them to pieces of meat.

2.  Fewer viewers complained that, by showing the woman's attitude change from one of apparent hostility to one of apparent sexual compliance, the ads perpetuated the idea that women said "No" when they meant "Yes". The viewers believed there were undertones of sexual abuse and the ads could encourage date rape.

3.  Fewer still viewers, who said the ads had been shown during films including "Bugsy Malone" and "Jumanji" and TV programmes including "Dancing on Ice" and "You've Been Framed", complained that the ads were unsuitable for broadcast at times when children might have been watching.

BCAP TV Advertising Code:	6.1;7.3.7;6.6
BCAP Rules on the Scheduling of TV ads:	4.2.3

Response
Rustlers said their target market was 18 to 34-year-old men. They asserted that the ads were intended as a fantastical portrayal of their primary target market's life; they were not intended to portray a real-life situation. They argued that the ads gave a tongue-in-cheek look at Rustlers' core benefit: instant gratification.  They pointed out that the man seduced a woman in 70 seconds and believed that was unrealistic; they asserted that the audience was never led to believe the seduction was a reality. They argued that the fantastical element of the ads was confirmed by the line "If only everything in life was as quick as Rustlers" and said the ads were intended to illustrate 'getting to the good bit quicker'.

Rustlers asserted that the image of the woman in her underwear was an integral part of the story and was therefore relevant. They pointed out that the ads did not contain any explicit or gratuitous language or images and they believed humour was used throughout. They argued that portraying women as the objects of men's desires was a recurring theme in advertising.  They believed it was a fact of life and argued that the dating scenario in the ads took place every day; they believed the roles played by the man and woman were recognised stereotypes. They asserted that the man was portrayed as shallow and relying on fantasy to fulfil his ambitions, whereas the woman was more sensible and less forward. They asserted that the man had invited her back to his flat because he liked her and she had agreed to go back; they pointed out that the woman did not say "No" to any suggestion made by the man.  

Rustlers believed there was no undertone of sexual abuse and the ads would not encourage date rape.  They pointed out that the man did not touch the woman and that, when she was in her underwear, he was not in the same room as her. They also pointed out that the ad concluded with the man back in reality eating the burger, not having success with the woman; they believed that implied the scenario had happened only in the man's mind.  

Rustlers said they had informed all TV stations that the ad had an ex-kids restriction. They explained that the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) was responsible for providing estimates of the number of people watching TV.  They sent the BARB figures for "Bugsy Malone", "Jumanji", "Dancing on Ice" and "You've Been Framed". The figures showed that "Dancing on Ice", "You've Been Framed" and "Jumanji" had not indexed highly against children but that "Bugsy Malone" had indexed highly against children.

The BACC said they had placed an ex-kids restriction on the ads, because they considered that they did not differ significantly from similar ads, such as 'lad' magazine ads, which were routinely given an ex-kids restriction. They believed the ads were not as sexually charged as ads for 'lad' magazines.

The BACC believed the ads were not offensive or demeaning to women. They believed the man appeared more interested in the microwave and the Rustlers product than he was in the woman. They asserted that the ads were of a surreal nature and clearly not based in reality; they therefore believed the ads would not cause offence.

The BACC believed the ads merely gave an example of an everyday occurrence of a man inviting a woman back to his home, with fantastical elements added; they therefore endorsed Rustlers' view that there was no undertone of sexual abuse and the ads would not encourage date rape.

Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the ads were aimed at 18 to 34-year-old men. We considered that the ads showed a clearly fictional situation and were intended as a humorous depiction of the short time it took to heat a Rustlers burger or chicken tikka naan. We considered that the ads were unlikely to be seen as equating women to a piece of meat but instead compared the speed at which the Rustlers' products could be heated with a woman removing her clothes in a very short period of time; a situation that would appeal to the target audience.  We considered that the humour in the ads was based on mildly sexual material and was not explicit. We understood that the depiction of a woman undressing to her underwear very quickly was unlikely to be to every viewer's taste but nevertheless considered that the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as sexist or demeaning to women.  

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 6.6 (Harmful or negative stereotypes) but did not find them in breach.

2. Not upheld
We considered that the woman had clearly gone back to the man's flat of her own free will and was not shown being forced by him at any stage. We noted the man did not touch the woman and was not in the same room as her when she was in her underwear. We considered that the ads clearly showed a fictional situation that, whilst reflecting the man's desire for the woman to be undressed, took place only in his mind and contained no violence or any interaction between the two once the woman was in her underwear. We considered that the ads did not contain undertones of sexual abuse and were unlikely to encourage date rape.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 6.7 (Health and safety) but did not find them in breach.

3. Upheld
We noted the ads had been given an ex-kids restriction by the BACC, which minimised the risk of them being seen by very young children, for whom the image of a woman in her underwear in a dating context, although not explicit, was, we considered, likely to be inappropriate. We noted the ads had been shown during programmes that older children might have seen. We considered, however, that, although the ad contained an image of a woman in her underwear, because there was no nudity or explicit imagery and because older children were likely to recognise that the situation was unrealistic, the ads were not inappropriate for, or likely to cause harm to, children who might be watching TV at times of the day outside children's programming slots. We concluded that the ex-kids restriction was appropriate and sufficient.

We noted, however, the ad had been scheduled in and around "Bugsy Malone" which had achieved a high rating against children; that meant children were 46% more likely to watch it than the average viewer. We considered, therefore, that scheduling the ad in and around "Bugsy Malone" represented a breach of the rules on the scheduling of advertising.

On this point, the ads breached CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of TV Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children). We also investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 7.3.7 (Children - Use of scheduling restrictions) but did not find them in breach.

Action
We told Rustlers to take more care with the scheduling of their ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)