Children

The way in which children react to advertising is determined by their age, their experience and the manner in which ads are presented. A teenager will interpret an ad in a different way to a very young child.  However, as some of our most vulnerable members of society, children, rightfully need extra protection when it comes to marketing messages either aimed at them or featuring them. For this reason, the advertising codes contain specific rules on advertising and children, to protect them from harm. For the purposes of advertising, a child is anyone that is under the age of 16 years old.

The rules

Ads aimed at, or featuring, children should not:

~ Contain anything that is likely to result in their physical, mental or moral harm.

This means that children should not be:
        * encouraged to enter strange places or talk to strangers;
        * shown in hazardous situations or behaving dangerously except to promote safety;
        * shown using, or in close proximity to, dangerous substances or equipment without direct adult supervision; or
        * encouraged to copy any practice that might be unsafe for a child.

~ Exploit their credulity, loyalty, vulnerability or lack of experience.

~ Children should not be made to feel inferior or unpopular for not buying the advertised product. It should be made clear to them that adult permission should be sought before committing to costly purchases. Some indication of price should be stated in ads for expensive toys and games, and advertisers should not try to minimise the cost by using phrases such as “only”.

~ Encourage “pester power” i.e. encourage children to make a nuisance of themselves to parents in order.

~ Exaggerate what is attainable by an ordinary child using the advertised product.

~ Present children in a sexually provocative or sexualised manner.

Further restrictions are imposed on children’s TV programming to prevent harm in this medium, particularly for ads that may cause children distress. Further details on those products on which advertising restrictions around children’s programming have been imposed can be found in the background briefing on scheduling restrictions.

Additionally, new rules have recently introduced concerning the advertising of food and drink products to children. More information on these new restrictions can be found here.

Example rulings
Some complaints that are made to the ASA may mention the impact of an ad on children, but are considered under the general taste and decency codes. The following examples are all adjudications that have been made following consideration of the complaints under the specific rules on advertising and children contained within the advertising codes.

no added sugar Ltd (Feb 2007)
Five complaints were received about this catalogue for children’s clothes, which showed young children wearing make-up, in various poses. The complainants considered some of the images offensive and irresponsible either because they showed a child posing in a sexually provocative manner, or because they found the images, together with the accompanying captions, sexually suggestive. The ASA upheld complaints about three of the images published in the brochure: one showed a young girl, heavily made up, kneeling on all fours with the caption: “a gentleman should never keep a lady waiting”; another showed a girl in a car looking vacantly out of the window, lying with her legs sprawled and accompanied with the caption: “not to be violated”; the third image showed the back view of a boy pushing a car where the child’s bottom was visible from the top of his jeans. In all three cases we were concerned that the images could be seen to be sexualising the child shown and therefore concluded that they could cause serious or widespread offence.

Disney Channel (Nov 2006)
This poster for the Playhouse Disney Channel, which claimed “Now everyone can watch playhouse Disney Channel”, attracted two complaints from parents whose children had seen the ad and believed the station was either free or available to all. The parents therefore objected that the poster encouraged pester power. We noted that the small print to the ad stated “Now available to subscribers of Sky Kids Mix, NTL Family Pack, Telewest Supreme Pack” but considered that the presentation of the ad was designed to appeal to children of a young age and that the headline message should not therefore have been ambiguous or open to interpretation. We considered that the claim was ambiguous and therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

Blue Skin (June 2006)
This Internet banner ad for a clothing stated: “Clothes that help you get laid ...”. A complaint was received that the ad was irresponsible as it appeared on a website used by teenagers. The advertisers pointed out that the site on which the ad appeared said individuals had to be 16 years old in order to join the website. We noted however, that the site could be viewed without membership. We considered that the site was of appeal to teenagers and that the explicit reference to sexual activity could be seen to condone or encourage underage sex. As the ad was likely to be seen by those under the age of 16 years, the ad was deemed irresponsible.

XFM (June 2006)
This ad for a radio station showed two toddlers in nappies dressed like the Gallagher brothers from the band Oasis. The toddler in the foreground wore tinted glasses, a hooded jacket and was holding two fingers up in a v-sign. 22 complaints were received that the image of a child making an obscene gesture was offensive and some complainants were concerned that it could encourage emulation by children. We considered that anyone familiar with the band Oasis would see the link with the image and find the parody humorous. We considered that most would not find the gesture offensive when made by a dressed up toddler. We also considered that the gesture would not be copied by other children either because the young would not understand it, or because those old enough comprehend would not want to emulate the actions of a toddler in a nappy. The ad was not, therefore, found in breach of the codes.

Atlantic Records (Mar 2005)
This ad appeared in Viz magazine to promote an album by Goldie Lookin Chain which showed a member of the group holding an aerosol can under his nose. A complaint was received that the ad might appeal to young people. The advertisers had pointed out that the average age of readers of Viz was 32 years old and the front cover had stated “NOT FOR SALE TO CHILDREN”. However, the ASA considered that the magazine was read by people younger that the advertisers stated averaged age.  We noted that Goldie Lookin Chain parodied youth culture but considered that they appealed to young people. We concluded that showing someone apparently sniffing a can of aerosol was irresponsible and could condone this unsafe practice.

Marmite (March 2005)
Six complaints were received about two ads that featured a large amorphous blob. People were shown either running away from the blob in terror, or running towards it and diving in. All the complainants had seen the ads around children’s programming and had said it had caused distress to their young children, who had been terrified. The BACC, which is responsible for pre-vetting TV ads, had said they didn’t think that it was necessary to apply a timing restriction to when these ads could be shown as the considered that the ads featured only mild, over the top comical horror. As no one was hurt by the blob, the BACC thought the very young would be unlikely to be scared by it, particularly as some people in the ad reacted positively to it and smiled. The advertisers voluntarily said, on hearing of the complaints, that the ads wouldn’t be screened around children’s programming, and this restriction was formalised by our ruling.