Charity advertising

Charities and not-for-profit organisations are required to adhere to the advertising codes in the same way as commercial advertisers. However, because the issues they deal with can be more emotive, charities are allowed more leeway than other advertisers. It should be noted, that although they have always been allowed to advertise in non-broadcast media, charity ads were not permitted on television or radio until 1989.

Charities often deal with extremely distressing subjects and sometime a degree of shock is warranted in their advertising in order to get their message across. We consider that, for serious or sensitive issues, the use of distressing or shocking images or words in charity advertising may be acceptable. This does not, however, give the advertisers carte blanche, and sometimes charity advertising, like its commercial counterparts, can cross the line of acceptability.

Problematic Ads
Although they have more leeway, charity advertising must still be legal, decent, honest and truthful.  The codes require that advertising should be accurate in its material details and truthful in the general impression it creates. In 2003 we received a complaint about a leaflet produced by the Children's Clinic, a registered children's charity.   The complainant believed the claim "...After the remedy she was completely back to normal - no asthma..." misleadingly implied the advertisers could cure asthma.  We agreed and reminded the advertisers that such claims should not be made unless supported by independent clinical evidence.

Acceptable Ads
Charity ads may not use shocking claims or images merely to attract attention or cause fear or distress without good reason.   In 2004 we received a complaint about a press ad placed by Marie Curie Cancer Care. The complainant, who suffered from cancer, objected that the ad was offensive and distressing to cancer sufferers because of the reference to inevitable death from the disease.  We acknowledged the complainant's distress and that the ad was dealing with a sensitive subject.  Nevertheless we considered that, in the context of an ad for a charity that looked after terminally ill cancer sufferers, the ad was acceptable and did not breach the codes.

Other Rulings

Save the Children Fund (Oct 2006)
This mailing came in an envelope that showed a close up of the eyes of a child of African origin on one side, and those of a child of Asian origin on the other. The text beneath both photos said "IF YOU HAVE BROWN EYES, YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO DIE YOUNG". We received six complaints from people worried that children may see the mailing and not understand the full message of the mailing. They were concerned that the children would suffer undue fear and distress by the suggestion that they would have an early death because they had brown eyes. The advertisers had explained that the purpose of the mailing was to educate recipients of the number of children dying in poor countries. We were concerned that the nature of the mailing was not clear from the presentation of the envelope and that the images of the eyes were likely to cause distress to young children. The advertisers were asked not to use the mailing in that form again.

NSPCC (March 2006)
This mailing was sent in the form of a child's birthday card and highlighted the issue of paedophiles preying on children. The inside of the card stated "Jamie's abuser never once forgot his birthday. x" We received two complaints that it wasn't immediately apparent that this was a piece of marketing material, and that it was offensive, and had the potential to distress, recipients who had been abused as children. We considered that as there was nothing on the envelope identifying the mailing as a piece of marketing, recipients may have believed it was personal correspondence. However, we did not uphold the complaints that the approach would cause offence or fear and distress.

Barnardo's (2003)
This national press ad campaign from a children's charity caused controversy when it appeared. The ASA published two separate adjudications on the campaign; one concerning the offensiveness of the campaign, the other ruling addressed the validity of some of the claims that the advertisers made. 476 people contacted the ASA to say that the found this ad campaign offensive, shocking and unduly distressing, especially if seen by children.  We acknowledged that the advertisers were trying to get across a very serious message but nevertheless considered they had used shocking images to attract attention and had therefore breached the advertising codes. We did not agree with the complainants' beliefs that the ads were irresponsible and could encourage emulation by children but the advertisers were told that the advertisements should not be repeated. Separately, three people contacted the ASA to challenge claims made in the advertisements. We agreed with the complainants' assertions that the ads implied that most babies born in poverty led a life of squalor and became drug users. However, the advertisers were unable to prove these implications and we therefore concluded that the ads were misleading. We did not, however uphold a complaint that the advertisers had misled by implying that they had set up services to address child poverty; the ASA Council considered that the advertisers had shown that the services they offered could help families to break the cycle of poverty, albeit indirectly.

British Heart Foundation (2002)
We received 314 complaints about this ad, which appeared in magazines and the national press.   The complainants had two main concerns about the ad. One concern was that the image of a woman suffering breathing difficulties with a plastic bag over her head was irresponsible because it might encourage emulation by children. We agreed with this concern and ruled that, because there was a very real possibility that children would copy this action, the advertisers should not have shown the image in publications that could be seen by children.  The other concern was that the image was shocking and distressing.   While we acknowledged that that might be true, we considered that the use of the image was justified in order to communicate the advertisers' message about the distress that heart failure can cause. NSPCC (2002)127 viewers complained about this commercial, for a children's charity, which they found shocking, distressing and offensive. The viewers also believed the ad misleadingly implied that only men abused children.   Sympathy was expressed to the viewers who had been shocked and distressed by the images and action shown, but it considered that the approach used was acceptable in light of the strong message the advertisers were trying to express.  It was considered that the commercial did not imply that only men abused children.