Ad that had public spitting mad
Adults watching TV prior to the 9pm watershed do so confident in the knowledge that the programme content should generally be appropriate for a younger audience to watch. Similarly, they can expect that advertisements will follow the same guidelines, meaning that what can or cannot be shown in a TV commercial is governed by the time of day it airs.
Knowing about the content of a programme in advance can help viewers decide whether or not to watch and, in the case of adults, whether their children should. Whilst there are various mechanisms in place, from TV guides to voiceovers, that enable a viewer to know exactly what a TV programme is going to be about and what kind of material it will feature, viewers do not have the luxury of knowing what is coming next in an advertising break.
Having no control over the ads that appear on their TV screens means that when the public sees something they believe is entirely unsuitable, be it for a younger audience or just in general, they can be quick to register their disquiet. This was the case with a TV ad for soft drink Fanta Z – almost 300 people contacted the ASA to object to it.
The ad in question featured a young couple having a picnic on a beach. They both began to drink from their cans of Fanta Light before stopping, staring at one another and then casually spitting the drink out. There then followed a sequence of scenes featuring other characters in various situations, all of whom had a drink of Fanta Light before spitting it out. A voiceover explained that “not everyone liked the taste” of Fanta Light and so it was, “Goodbye Fanta Light, hello Fanta Z. Real Fanta taste, zero added sugar.”
The vast majority of viewers who complained to the ASA believed the ad condoned spitting, encouraged bad manners and antisocial behaviour. Of particular concern to complainants was the effect the ad may have on children and young adults. Amongst the complaints were reports that children had been seen copying the advertisement. Many also considered that the ad was offensive due to the “disgusting” images it depicted, whilst a few even raised the issue of health implications because spitting could spread tuberculosis. Spitting was an issue which clearly roused strong opinion amongst the public and, responding to these concerns, the ASA launched a formal investigation.
In response to the ASA’s enquiries Fanta emphasized that they had not intended to cause offence to viewers. They explained the concept behind their campaign, the message they wanted to get across and their target audience. They stated that they had created a bold, highly fictitious and unexpected approach to convey the message that the new Z range had ‘zero added sugar’. The target audience was 16- to 24-year olds whom they believed would understand the irony of the ad.
The BACC, who pre-cleared the ad, had put an ex-kids restriction in place which meant it wouldn’t appear in or around programmes made for or aimed at children. The BACC believed the ad did not condone or encourage antisocial behaviour. They understood adults might find it undesirable for a young audience to see any depiction of spitting, but they believed the spitting was conducted in an amusingly polite and restrained manner. The controlled way in which the spitting was done was fairly mild and harmless and was different from showing children spitting as a gesture of disrespect.
When reaching its decision the ASA took into account the light-hearted intention of the ad and accepted that, generally, viewers would understand this approach. Though the ASA understood that the images of spitting were not to everyone’s taste, the actions were highly stylised and the drink had not been spat out in disgust. It was therefore not considered likely to cause serious or widespread offence. With regards to the issue of spreading germs by spitting, the ASA did not believe any emulation by young children was likely to pose a significant health risk, so this part of the complaint was not upheld either.
However, despite the scheduling restriction in place, many children would still be able to see the ad at other times of the day. The ASA was concerned that young children would see the ad as fun and easy to copy. Because spitting is widely perceived as antisocial the ASA found the ad in breach of the TV Advertising Code relating to children and causing mental harm, as well as the Rules on the Scheduling of Advertising for treatments unsuitable for children. The ad was given a post 9pm restriction.