ASA fights to keep violent imagery in check

Introduction

In 2007 complaints to the ASA about violent imagery in advertisements almost doubled on the previous year and by the end of October the ASA had received nearly 1800 complaints about more than 500 ads. At first glance, judging whether violent imagery in advertising is acceptable may appear to be an open and shut case. For many people any depiction of violence will always be offensive and wholly irresponsible. But the debates surrounding this issue are more complex than a simple call to ban all ads featuring guns and knives or other forms of violence would suggest.

The ASA has a crucial role to play in protecting advertising freedoms; part of this involves giving advertisers the right to free speech even when what they have to say is not to everyone’s tastes. It has to strike a balance between protecting the public from advertising that may cause harm or offence, which is a crucial part of its work, whilst at the same time avoiding being a social engineer. The ASA’s role is not to act as a moral arbiter.

In the news

Open a newspaper or switch on the news and chances are you will read or see a report highlighting the less than cheery aspects of the modern world. War, terrorism, conflict, gang culture and anti-social behaviour, to name but a few are all topics eagerly seized upon by the headline writers. A 24 hour media has meant we are bombarded everyday with hard hitting and often controversial scenes and images.

Perhaps this is one reason that explains why members of the public have increasingly objected to advertisements that feature guns and knives, or those for video games and horror films that they believe are too graphic in their depictions of violence. The overriding concern is that ads of this nature depict disturbing and distressing scenes that upset children, are unsuitable for them to see or hear and are therefore irresponsible. Moreover some people believe that these kinds of ads are offensive and even glorify and condone violence.

It is not just ads for horror films or those featuring guns however that are coming under scrutiny. The depiction of violence in advertising has many subtle shades – from the obvious blood and gore seen in some movie trailers to mock fighting or slapstick violence in ads that depict everyday situations. The ASA has duly been monitoring the situation to ascertain whether advertisers are pushing the boundaries too far or if adults, despite their legitimate concerns about violence, are treating children with kid-gloves.

Testing the public’s pulse

The issue of violent imagery in advertising has become a key focus of the ASA’s work. Responding to public concern the ASA held a seminar in Nottingham on this issue in November. Delegates who had a personal or professional concern about violence in advertising were invited to tell the ASA where they thought the line should be drawn. The aim of the seminar was to test the public pulse and establish whether the ASA is striking the right balance with the decisions it makes. The discussions and feedback from the seminar have been summarised in a report that has been sent to the ASA Council to help them judge future complaints about violence in ads.

Questions that the ASA wanted to explore at the seminar included:

• What types of violence and aggression are acceptable to show in adverts?
• Is cartoon or animated violence more acceptable than ‘real’ violence?
• Is there a difference between the depiction of ‘fantasy’ violence and ‘real’ violence?
• How far can violence be ‘stylised’ or glamorised?
• How far should ads for 18 or 15 rated computer games or films reflect the content of the game or film?

Ultimately the decisions that the ASA makes on matters of taste and decency such as whether advertisements are too violent are highly subjective and open to interpretation. The ASA therefore wanted to ensure it was reflecting the prevailing standards in society by listening to the public’s thoughts on this sensitive topic.

For your eyes only

ASA research conducted a few years ago revealed that the public’s greatest concern about advertisements is what children might see. Advertisements can sometimes arrive in the public domain unbidden for instance via our TV screens and on billboards.

The Advertising Standards Authority works to ensure that advertisements that have the potential to offend, distress or harm are promptly withdrawn and are not given the chance to reach a wide audience. Of particular concern to the ASA is ensuring that children are protected from unsuitable material. Though the Advertising Codes are designed to minimize the risk of inappropriate advertising from reaching a young audience, it can be difficult to monitor and control exactly what children are exposed to in terms of advertising material and there are times when the ASA has to step in and take action.

Violence on the streets

When it comes to having some control over the advertising images children are exposed to, arguably the most difficult medium to prevent them from seeing is posters. There is no remote control, timing restriction or web filter that can stop children from seeing something that appears publicly out on the streets.

When the poster campaign for the film “Shoot ‘Em Up” was launched it wasn’t long before the ASA had received 54 complaints from concerned members of the public. One of the posters featured the actor Paul Giamatti pointing a gun whilst holding a mobile phone to his ear alongside text stating “Just another family man making a living…”. Another poster featured the actor Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti and Monica Bellucci. Clive Owen had a pistol in each hand and was pointing them outwards towards the viewer. Paul Giamatti was stood holding a sniper rifle. The strap line read “The most frenzied, insanely fun 90 minutes you’ll spend in the cinema this year”. A third ad featured Clive Owen holding a gun by his side next to the text “I’m a British Nanny and I’m dangerous”.

People objected to the ASA that the ads were irresponsible because they glamorised and glorified gun crime. They also believed the posters were offensive and insensitive towards families directly affected by gun crime. Others thought the ad featuring Paul Giamatti was unduly threatening and might cause distress to young children. The ASA launched a formal investigation.

The advertiser, Entertainment Film Distributors, pointed out that their contractors for poster sites were in close contact with local Councils around the country so that they could check the acceptability of their ads at the time of booking the advertising space. They did not believe their posters glamorised gun violence. They also argued that the image of Clive Owen holding the two guns had specifically been designed so as to angle the guns away from the viewer. Although the advertisers clearly sympathised with families affected by gun crime they explained that they could not have the foreknowledge of when and where shootings would occur and that the posters were booked and supplied to sites before tragedies, such as the death of Rhys Jones, happened.

Looking into all of the issues that were raised by the public and when weighing up the advertisers defence the ASA accepted that the content of the posters reflected the content of the film. Also, the ASA noted that in two of the ads the guns were not pointing directly at the viewer. Although the ASA was mindful of the very real concern amongst the public about gun crime it concluded that the poster featuring Clive Owen with the gun by his side coupled with the line “I’m a British Nanny and I’m dangerous” was unlikely to be seen to glamorise or glorify gun crime.

The ASA, however, took a different view when considering the other two ads. The prominence of the guns and the overall suggestion of direct aggression was not acceptable and could be seen to condone violence by glorifying or glamorising the use of guns. The posters were found in the breach of the rules on social responsibility and violence and the advertisers were told they could not show them again.

All in the name of fashion

Guns and knives have increasingly permeated into mainstream culture through their association with celebrity through music, fashion, films, computer games. But how far can advertising go in following and reflecting this trend?

The fashion industry is renowned for its creativity and innovation as well as producing challenging and provocative images in its advertisements. But when the fashion giants Dolce & Gabbana chose to stylise violence in their ads they quickly found out that they had misjudged the public’s sense of taste and decency.

The ASA received 166 complaints about two ads for Dolce & Gabbana clothing that appeared in the national press and a magazine on the grounds that they were irresponsible and offensive for condoning and glamorising knife-related violence in the UK. One of the ads featured two men brandishing knives in an aggressive manner towards a third whilst a fourth lay on the floor with a wound to his forehead. The other ad featured two men supporting a woman who was holding a knife and had a wound on her chest.

Dolce & Gabbana argued that the ad campaign took its inspiration from well-known paintings, were highly stylised and were intended to be an iconic representation of the Napoleonic period of art. They did not believe the ads suggested violence or implied aggression and they also pointed out that the wound on the woman’s chest was made-up to be unrealistic. Dolce & Gabbana maintained that the ads could not cause offence.

The ASA disagreed and upheld the complaints. It considered that the first ad showed the knives being brandished aggressively and gave an overall impression of violence. As a result the ASA ruled that the ads could be seen as condoning or glorifying knife-related violence and were therefore irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

ASA takes Hammer to Horror Film ads

Often the placement of an ad can determine how it will be received by members of the public. For instance, a risqué image that appears on a billboard is more likely to generate complaints than if it was placed in a more targeted media where the advertiser can more accurately judge the sensibilities of its audience. The ASA takes into account the medium, context and audience when judging whether an ad that has provoked complaints is likely to be in breach of the Advertising Code. So, mechanisms such as timing restrictions on TV or placing ads in targeted press can reduce the likelihood of an ad causing offence. Sometimes, however, even these kinds of precautions are not enough to prevent complaints to the ASA.

One of the reasons for the increase in complaints about violent imagery in advertising has been due to a recent proliferation of ads for horror films. Advertisers seeking to promote 18 certificate movies face the dilemma of how to convey the subject matter of the film without depicting anything that will be considered inappropriate for an under-age audience. Where TV ads for these films are concerned a timing restriction is used as a safeguard to protect younger viewers. However, when a TV ad for the DVD release of the horror film Silent Hill hit the screens it became apparent that even a post 9pm restriction was not enough.

A brief compilation of scenes from the film including a woman screaming, a woman being splashed with blood, an eyeless man screaming, mutant monsters and a woman having her throat cut were more than enough to prompt 21 viewers to complain that the violence in the ad was too graphic. When making its judgment the ASA acknowledged that the ad had been given a post 9pm restriction. However it considered that because of the violent nature of the scene showing a woman having her throat slit it was likely to cause offence to viewers generally. The ad was deemed unsuitable for broadcast before 11pm.

Domestic bliss or heavy handed?

Rather than just focusing on the relatively straight forward debates about guns and knives and where the line should be drawn when depicting them in ads the ASA seminar was an opportunity to discuss violence in ads in all its guises. One of the most complained about ads of the year did not feature a knife or a gun, blood or sexual violence; in fact it featured what at first glance appeared to be an everyday domestic situation.

MFI, the household furnishing retailer, ran a series of TV ads that featured various scenes where domestic arguments were taking place including; a mother and daughter rowing in a kitchen after the daughter returns home late as well as a husband and wife in bed arguing about him having spent the preceding evening chatting to a female colleague. Each ad ended with the revelation that these domestic scenes were actually taking place in an MFI showroom. They did not hit a chord with viewers. 217 viewers objected that the ads were offensive, shocking and disturbing as well as irresponsible and distressing because they highlighted and trivialised problems of child and domestic abuse.

In response to this criticism MFI said they believed that the ads were light-hearted and were neither offensive nor irresponsible. Whilst they accepted that the dialogue and action in the ads was vigorous they thought it was clear that it was not real life and they would be unlikely to cause distress. Overall their intention had been to portray common scenes in an exaggerated and humorous fashion.

Although the ASA understood that the depiction of arguing and perceived abuse in the domestic scenes was not to everyone’s tastes it considered that the scenarios in four out of the five ads were likely to be viewed in the context that MFI had intended. The ASA accepted that they would be unlikely to be seen to depict scenes of child or domestic abuse or trivialise those issues.

However, one of the ads that featured a woman slapping her husband twice for leaving the toilet seat up was of considerable concern to the ASA. It gave the impression that aggression and violence enabled people to get their own way. Depicting slapping as an acceptable way to resolve issues was likely to be seen to condone intimidation, domestic violence and aggression and therefore cause serious or widespread offence. Furthermore, children could be cause social, moral or psychological harm. Although MFI removed this particular ad from transmission the ASA pointed to the seriousness of the offence that had been caused and were concerned it had been broadcast in the first place.

For a good cause?

Charity advertisers often use hard-hitting images and messages to raise awareness about very serious and worthy causes. But where does hard-hitting end and unnecessary violence begin? Before the ASA took over responsibility for TV advertising the Independent Television Commission (ITC) received 125 complaints about an NSPCC ad on this very issue.

The ad featured an abusive father shouting at his son who was depicted as cartoon character. The father proceeded to kick, punch and throttle the cartoon boy and throw him around the home. In true cartoon fashion the boy didn’t suffer any ill-consequences but merely saw stars around his head, went crossed eyed and always bounced back as the abuse continued unabated. Only when the cartoon boy was thrown to the bottom of the stairs at the end of the ad were viewers shown a real boy lying unconscious. A caption read ‘real children don’t bounce back’.

Viewers who contacted the ITC said they had found the ad upsetting and shocking whilst others who had suffered child abuse said it reminded them of their own traumatic experience. Although they acknowledged that it was important to raise awareness of child abuse they thought this particular ad had gone too far.

In its defence the NSPCC pointed to the 9pm restriction that was in place and stressed that they did not intend to cause distress to viewers. They understood that child abuse was a difficult and unpleasant topic but argued that it was important to raise awareness in order to help prevent it. The ITC sympathised with viewers who had been upset and accepted that the ad was extremely hard-hitting. Ultimately, however, the ITC considered the NSPCC’s arguments in support of the campaign and that the timing restriction was sufficient.

Conclusion

Some argue that the proliferation of violent imagery into mainstream culture has contributed to society becoming desensitized to violence. However, this argument can be countered by what appears to be a significant shift in public sensitivities towards violent imagery in advertisements that has manifested itself in the form of complaints.

The rise in complaints to the ASA about violent imagery in advertising is something that the ASA takes very seriously. The rulings it has made should serve to remind advertisers where the line should be drawn on what is and is not acceptable. Certainly the British public are letting the advertising industry know how they feel through a record number of complaints. The ASA will continue to respond to public concerns and fight hard to ensure that advertising can still pack a punch without the need to condone, glamorise or glorify violence.

To access key ASA adjudications on the issue of violent imagery in advertising click here:
 
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43245.htm  - MFI

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_42118.htm  - Dolce & Gabbana

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43573.htm  - Entertainment Film Distributors Ltd

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40533 – Diesel (London) Ltd

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_42050.htm  - Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment Ltd

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40698  – Midway Games Ltd