ASA Adjudications

MFI Retail Ltd
Southon House
333 The Hyde
Edgware Road
Colindale
London
NW9 6TD
Number of complaints: 217
Date:26 September 2007
Media:Television
Sector:Retail
Agency:M & C Saatchi

Ad
Five TV ads for MFI kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms.   

a. One ad showed a man and a woman seated in a kitchen.  A teenage girl walked through the door.  The woman immediately started shouting at the girl about being late, asking her whether she had been drinking and who had she been out with.  The girl shouted back "No ... leave me alone".  The girl walked out of the room into a bedroom while the woman continued to shout at her and the camera pulled back to show  the girl was actually in an MFI showroom.  The girl knocked a pile of brochures out of a saleswoman's hands and dropped onto a bed. The saleswoman bent down to start picking up the brochures.  The voice-over stated "At MFI there's everything from kitchens, bedrooms and bathrooms ... so you'll feel right at home".

b. Another ad showed a man in a kitchen ironing a pair of trousers.  A woman walked in and started shouted at him "Why is it whenever my mother comes round to babysit you seem to take an eternity?"  The man shouted back "Believe me with your mother coming around to babysit, I want to get out as quick as I can".  They continued to shout at each other and the camera pulled back to show that the kitchen was in an MFI showroom.  A salesman walked in and showed the couple how quickly the ironing board could be stored away.  The voice-over stated "When your kitchen's measured, designed and installed by MFI you'll feel right at home".
 
c. Another ad showed a woman in a bathroom.  She noticed the toilet seat had been left up and shouted at her husband to come into the bathroom.  When he entered, she shouted at him "You've done it again haven't you? Haven't you?" and slapped him on the cheek.  She then shouted "I keep telling you to keep the seat down! I'll spell it for you to make it easy for you; D-O-W-N. DOWN ... ", and she slapped him again.  The camera pulled back to show that the bathroom was in an MFI showroom.  A salesman walked in and closed the 'soft close' toilet seat lid and said to the couple "Ah, I see you have found the soft close toilet seat".  The voice-over stated "When your bathroom's measured, designed and installed by MFI you'll feel right at home".

d. Another ad showed the same woman and man from ad (c) in a bathroom.  The woman stood beside a toilet with its seat up, while a man brushed his teeth at a sink.  She shouted at her husband to come over to the toilet.  When he did, she shouted at him "You've done it again haven't you? Haven't you?" and waved her arms about aggressively while the man looked abashed.  She then shouted "I keep telling you to keep the seat down! I'll spell it for you to make it easy for you; D-O-W-N. DOWN ... ".  The camera pulled back to show that the bathroom was in an MFI showroom.  A salesman walked in and closed the soft close toilet seat lid and said to the couple "Ah, I see you have found the soft close toilet seat".  The voice-over stated "When your bathroom's measured, designed and installed by MFI you'll feel right at home".

e. Another ad showed an older woman leaning forward in bed while her husband got undressed for bed.  He said "I must have mentioned carol, just a girl from work having a drink" and she shouted "You spent the whole evening with her. Don't you think you're going back to your bachelor days with me, because you are not! ... ".  The bedroom light was then switched on when a salesperson and another customer walked into the room, just as the husband was getting into bed, and the camera pulled back to show the bedroom was an MFI showroom.  The salesperson said to the customers "These units will come fitted or you can get them free-standing" then the walked out as if amused by the couple in the bed.  The voice-over stated "When your bedroom's measured, designed and installed by MFI you'll feel right at home".

Issue
1. Most viewers, including one who had been a victim of domestic violence, objected that the ads were offensive, shocking and disturbing.

2. Most viewers believed the ads were irresponsible, because they suggested that arguing and shouting were normal features of home life.

3. Several viewers believed ad (a) might encourage children to behave in an aggressive and disrespectful way and could undermine parents.

4. Several viewers objected that ad (a) was irresponsible, because it implied that shouting at children was acceptable and they believed it could encourage adults to bully or verbally abuse children.

5. Several viewers objected that ad (a) would cause distress to children who may have experienced similar situations at home.

6. Several viewers found the ads distressing because they thought they were highlighting problems of child and domestic abuse; those viewers said the ads were particularly offensive because they believed they trivialised the issues of child and domestic abuse.

7. Some viewers objected that the ads were inappropriate for broadcast when children might be watching.
BCAP TV Advertising Code: 6.1;6.2;6.4;7.4.1;7.4.3;7.4.7
BCAP Rules on the Scheduling of TV ads: 4.2.3

Response
MFI said it was not their intention to cause distress or offence in any way and apologised to the viewers who may have been upset by the ads.  They explained that the idea of the campaign, which had been based on consumer research, was to portray common scenes or well known domestic jokes, such as leaving the toilet seat up, in an exaggerated and humorous fashion. They believed that by taking this route they had produced ads that were original and humorous.

They believed they had not breached the Code and, although they accepted that the ads might have made some viewers feel uncomfortable, they believed they had not caused serious or widespread offence.  They said ad (a) featured the commonly understood scenario of a concerned mother remonstrating with her teenage daughter about staying out late.  They pointed out that the parents were shown as being concerned for their daughter's welfare and believed the daughter's response was in keeping with the behaviour of an independent older teenager.  MFI asserted that ad (a) did not condone or encourage anti-social behaviour or present aggression in an admirable way towards either adults or children.  They said the ad showed a vigorous exchange of views between the mother and daughter, but pointed out that there was no bullying, taunting, teasing or ostracisation in the ad.  They argued that the scene was milder than most episodes of popular soap operas and, as such, would be unlikely to cause distress.

MFI said ads (b), (c), (d) and (e) were light-hearted and based on the dynamics between married couples.  They believed ads (b) and (e), featuring the young married couple and the older married couple respectively, were not offensive or irresponsible, because they only featured banter about a benign mother-in-law joke and the idea of a married man going back to his bachelor days.  They explained that ads (c) and (d) were based on a common complaint, from women, that men leave the toilet seat up.  They argued that the dialogue and action was vigorous, but that it was not offensive or shocking.  They pointed out that the context of the situation or joke was important and that the realisation that the action took place in an MFI store made it clear that it was not real life.  They explained that ad (d), featuring the slap, had been removed from transmission and that all of the ads had an ex-kids restriction, which would prevent them being broadcast around programmes made for or targeted at children.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said that when they viewed the ads they decided that their edgy nature required a timing restriction.  They explained that they decided on an ex-kids restriction, because they felt the very young might not understand the idea and so could be upset.
Assessment
1., 2 ., 6. & 7. Upheld
The ASA noted the viewers believed the ads were irresponsible because they depicted arguing and perceived abuse in domestic scenes.  However, we considered that most viewers would understand that arguments and raised voices occurred in normal home life at various times and would be likely to view the scenarios shown in the ads in that context.  We noted that the participants in ads (a), (b) and (e) were shown to stand up for themselves and did not seem to be bullied or cowed by the other's actions.  We considered that the man in ad (d) appeared resigned and accustomed to the woman's tirade about leaving the toilet seat up but did not appear to be in fear of domestic violence.  We concluded that ads (a), (b), (d) and (e) would be unlikely to be seen to depict scenes of child or domestic abuse or trivialise those issues and were therefore acceptable for broadcast with an ex-kids restriction.   

However, we considered that the woman's action in ad (c), of slapping her husband twice as punishment for leaving the toilet seat up, gave the impression that aggression and violence enabled people in everyday life to get their own way.  We noted the scene was clearly domestic and appeared to be real life.  We concluded that the scene of domestic violence in ad (c), by the woman who slapped the man twice, was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to viewers and could be seen to condone intimidation, domestic violence and aggression as an acceptable way to resolve issues. We considered that it could also cause social, moral or psychological harm to children.  We welcomed MFI's prompt action in removing ad (c) from transmission, but we were concerned that it had been broadcast at all.

On points 1., 2 & 6, we investigated ads (a), (b), (d) and (e) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.2 (Violence and cruelty), 6.4 (Personal distress), 7.4.1 (Mental harm) and 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions), but did not find them in breach.

On point 7, we investigated ads (a), (b), (d) and (e) under CAP (Broadcast) rules on the Scheduling of Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children), but did not find them in breach.

On points 1., 2 & 6, ad (c) breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.2 (Violence and cruelty), 6.4 (Personal distress), 7.4.1 (Mental harm) and 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions).

On point 7, ad (c) breached CAP (Broadcast) rules on the Scheduling of Advertisements 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).

3. & 4. Not upheld
We considered that most viewers would understand that arguments occurred in normal home life at various times between children growing up and wishing to assert their independence and parents wishing to keep control.  We noted that both the mother and the daughter were depicted as equals, in that neither were cowed or bullied by the other. We noted the girl's action of knocking the leaflets out of the shop assistants hands could be seen as going too far by some viewers, but we considered that it was clear from the ad, at that point, that the action took place in the store and so the over-the-top response of the girl was clearly a ploy to try and enhance the humour of the ad.  We concluded that the ad did not encourage children to be any more disrespectful to adults, or their parents, than they would be already be seen to be by asserting their increasing independence.  We also concluded that the ad did not encourage adults to bully or shout at children, because we considered that most viewers would understand that the daughter was not bullied or abused by the mother.  

On points 3 & 4, we investigated ad (a) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.2 (Violence and cruelty), 7.4.1 (Children - Mental harm) and 7.4.3 (Children - Bullying), but did not find it in breach.

5. Not upheld
We sympathised with any child who had experienced bullying or verbal abuse and we noted the concern that the viewers had expressed for such children.  We considered that ad (a) would be understood by most viewers as the depiction of a typical heated exchange between a concerned parent and a teenage daughter coming home later than expected and as such was no different to scenes depicted commonly in a soap opera.  Because of that, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious distress to a significant number of viewers.

On point 5, we investigated ad (a) under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.4 (Personal distress), 7.4.1 (Children - Mental harm) and 7.4.3 (Children - Bullying), but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ad (c) should not be shown again.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

back | top