11th Annual Consumer Conference

Delegates at the ASA Consumer Conference discuss our work

The 11th ASA Annual Consumer Conference saw over 60 members of the public take the opportunity to meet with representatives from the ASA and to have their say on what they think about advertising standards. The event, which was held at the Park Plaza Hotel in Leeds, was attended by students, community group workers, teachers, religious leaders and people of different ages and backgrounds.  All were keen to air their views.

The event opened with a talk by ASA Director General Christopher Graham. He gave attendees an overview of how advertising regulation works, what the ASA is here to do, how it upholds standards in advertising and the issues that it has to deal with on a daily basis such as taste and decency, social responsibility and truthfulness. This was followed by Colin Philpott, a current ASA Council member, who gave an insight into how Council - the decision making body - functions and ultimately makes its rulings. 

The morning continued with a workshop session. Delegates were split into two groups and were taken through a presentation with examples of ads that have provoked complaints and been subject to ASA Council rulings.

The key focus of the workshop was the opportunity for delegates to take on the role of ASA Council for themselves. After the presentation they were asked to look at four ads that had provoked complaints to the ASA. In small groups they were asked to examine the complaints, measure them against the advertising codes and reach a general consensus as to whether or not they would uphold the complaints and have the ads withdrawn. This exercise stimulated some healthy debate with diverse opinions and thought-provoking arguments coming to the fore.

The benefits of the workshop were twofold. The delegates gained a clearer insight into how decisions on issues such as taste and decency are made by the ASA Council and, importantly, why making those decisions is not always easy. Secondly, the feedback the ASA gained from listening to the debate was very useful; both in terms of judging if its decisions were reflected by the prevailing opinions of the workshop groups and taking on board the comments and questions that were raised.

The Annual Consumer Conference was a great success: it was well attended and the public played a full part in the debates that were raised on the day. The ASA was able to inform people about the work it does but most importantly it was able to listen and learn what the public thinks about advertising standards.

Attendee Comments:

“Very informative and interesting – helped to understand exactly what the ASA does.”
“Really enjoyed being able to discuss the ASA decisions on ads.”
“Relaxed atmosphere, friendly discussions and I was listened to.”

Workshops

Four cases were discussed in each workshop.  The ads used and the feedback received is detailed below:

GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd

Issue

A poster headlined "WATER DESIGNED FOR EXERCISE" featuring a running human figure, formed of water, attracted a complaint from a competitor.  The poster also featured a photograph of a bottle of the drink and text next to the photograph stated "THE FITNESS WATER FROM LUCOZADE SPORT".

The complainants believed the advertiser’s product was a high calorie drink and objected that the use of the term "water" misleadingly implied the product was an unprocessed drink with zero calories.

Response

The advertisers said the claims "fitness water" and "water designed for exercise" suggested that more than water was on offer.  They explained that the product was developed for people who exercised to improve their body shape, to lose weight or to maintain their current weight and who, therefore, required effective hydration but normally rejected conventional sports drinks because of their high calorie content; the product met the needs of those people because it tasted good, was low in calories and had been specifically designed to provide effective hydration.  The advertisers said the product was a hypotonic sports drink, which meant that it was designed to offer effective hydration; it was of a new product type of lightly flavoured, low-calorie drinks.  They used the term "fitness water" in conjunction with the words "Lucozade Sport Hydro Active" to describe the new product type; that meant that the term "fitness water" would always be seen in the context of a brand name.  They pointed out that they had been selling the product for a year and had not received complaints from consumers who were disappointed because they had expected it to be pure, natural water.  They said Hydro Active fell into the broad product category of flavoured waters and fortified waters, which consumers were familiar with and which contained water with added ingredients, such as sweeteners, acidulants, carbohydrate, fruit juices and calcium.  They argued that, at 10 kcal per 100 ml, the product was a low calorie drink.

Delegates’ Decision – Upheld (8 upheld, 3 not upheld)

Overall, the delegates decided to uphold complaints about this ad.  However, some thought it would be obvious to the majority of consumers that the product was more than water, pointing to the existing knowledge people have of the Lucozade brand and the use of the word ‘designed’ in the ad. Delegates also considered that the type of people this ad was aimed at would be very familiar with sports drinks and their ingredients.

ASA Council Decision - upheld

The ASA noted the product's ingredients were water, glucose syrup, citric acid, acidity regulators, flavouring, sweeteners and vitamins.  It noted the product contained 10 kcal, 2 g carbohydrate and 35 mg sodium per 100 ml.  The information submitted by the advertisers showed that the sample of flavoured mineral water drinks contained similar calorie and carbohydrate content to the advertiser’s product, whereas the sample of energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks contained significantly higher calorie and carbohydrate content than the advertiser’s product.  The ASA considered that the product was not a high calorie drink.  It considered, however, that the overall impression of the advertisements was that the product contained no calories or additives.  Because it did, the ASA considered that the advertisement was misleading.  It told the advertisers to avoid that impression in future.

Click here for the full adjudication

Masterfoods Ltd

Issue

An advertisement for Skittles showed a boy listening to music and drinking tea with his grandparents. He gave his grandparents some Skittles, after which the grandfather started ‘scratching’ using a gramophone record. The grandmother grabbed a handful of the sweets, put them in her mouth and then jumped up. She started dancing and rapped the words “Yeah, yeah, check it, check it, I’m a bad grandma busting moves to shock ya.” She finished the dance by ripping open her cardigan and blouse and flashing at her grandson with her back to the camera. The ASA received complaints that the ad was (1) ageist and degrading to the elderly, that it was (2) offensive because it featured flashing and linked the advertiser’s sweets to drugs.  Some viewers also complained that the ad was (3) inappropriate for children and may encourage anti-social behaviour amongst young people.

Delegates Decision 
Point 1 Not Upheld (1 upheld, 10 not upheld)
Point 2 Not Upheld (2 upheld, 9 not upheld)
Point 3 Not Upheld (0 upheld, 11 not upheld)

Most delegates found this ad humorous.  Some said they found it tasteless but certainly not offensive.  Delegates disagreed that the ad was ageist and degrading, with many people commenting that it portrayed a positive image of the elderly.  A few delegates were concerned about the drugs link, because the way the granny took the sweets and then her behaviour changed it implied that something in the sweets had a drug like effect.  Nobody felt the ad would encourage anti-social behaviour amongst young people.

ASA Council Decision -  Not Upheld (all points)

1. Complaints not upheld
The scenario was surreal. It was likely to be seen as light-hearted by the majority of viewers and would not encourage disrespect towards the elderly. The ASA did not consider it degraded older people but rather portrayed the advertiser’s sweets as a youthful product and therefore showed the grandparents acting more like children after eating them. Rather than negatively stereotyping or degrading the elderly the advertisement portrayed them in a fun and youthful light.

2. Complaints not upheld
The advertisement did not feature any nudity. It showed an unusual scenario unlikely to be regarded as offensive by most viewers. The ASA did not believe that the advertisement linked the advertiser’s product to drugs. There was no reference made to drugs or to drug culture, the ad merely showed the invigorating effect the sweets had on the grandparents. The ASA Council considered that the advertisement was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to viewers generally or to women and the elderly in particular.

3. Complaints not upheld
The advertisement was given an ex-kids restriction by the BACC to keep it away from younger viewers. Because there was no nudity and because the theme was obviously surreal the ASA Council did not consider that the advertisement was inappropriate for, or likely to cause harm to, older children who might be watching TV at other times of the day outside children’s programming. The ASA did not think that a further scheduling restriction was necessary. In addition, the advertisement was unlikely to encourage anti-social behaviour amongst young people.

Click here for the full adjudication

Travelocity.co.uk Ltd

Issue

A radio advertisement for Travelocity.co.uk featured Alan Whicker who said “Whicker here, in Kenya thanks to my friends at Travelocity.co.uk, and enjoying a trip in a helium balloon. Talking of helium, it's the perfect stuff to help me tell you all about Travelocity.co.uk in a short commercial”. He then appeared to inhale helium and talk more quickly in a high pitched voice.

A listener complained that the advertisement promoted the inhalation of helium which they believed was dangerous.

Response

The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC), who cleared the advertisement, said it had approved similar creative treatments over many years and understood the risk to be so small that no harm could result from the scenario portrayed in the advertisement.

As part of this case study delegates were shown information from the ‘Compressed Gas Association’ website that highlighted the possible dangers of inhaling helium.

Delegates’ Decision – Upheld (10 upheld, 1 not upheld)

The delegates’ feelings were mixed towards this advertisement.  Most people acknowledged that inhaling helium was something that people would be familiar with or may have tried themselves.  Many thought that the ad was scheduled appropriately and that it wouldn’t be heard by or appeal to children.  Some delegates felt that to uphold the complaint the ASA would be taking a ‘nanny’ attitude and that consumers should be able to take responsibility for their own actions.  However, after seeing the medical advice indicating that inhaling helium can have serious consequences the majority of delegates felt they had no choice but to uphold complaints.

ASA Council Decision - Upheld
The ASA Council felt there was sufficient documented evidence to confirm that inhaling helium gas was a potentially dangerous practice as it replaced the oxygen in the blood with another gas, which for some people could cause asphyxiation. Although it was unlikely to seriously harm the majority of people we considered the advertisement condoned the practice of inhaling helium, particularly by describing it as “the perfect stuff”.

Click here for the full adjudication

Wanadoo

Issue

A commercial for Wanadoo was set in a scrapyard full of wrecked and smashed cars. It featured a group of teenagers who, to the soundtrack of rock music, raced through the scrapyard dancing, laughing, shouting, and splashing about in muddy puddles. The final shot, seen through the smashed windscreen of one of the cars, showed a girl and boy on the back seat French kissing.

1. Some viewers believed that the French kiss was too explicit, especially when children could be watching.

2. Some viewers were concerned that the commercial had shown youngsters playing in a dangerous environment. They felt it encouraged and condoned behaviour that could lead to harm.

Advertisers response:

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said it had asked for a number of edits to be made to the commercial before it would give its approval. It asked for changes to remove the actors climbing on the cars and to make the scrapyard more of a backdrop. Nonetheless, it still considered the commercial warranted a restriction to keep it away from programmes made specifically for children.

1. The advertising agency did not believe the kiss was coarse or unduly sexual. It said that the kissing depicted was widely accepted as a part of young adult life, and commonly shown in television programmes such as Hollyoaks and T4.

2. The agency said that there were no children in the commercial, and it was not targeted at them. All the actors were over 18 in age and appearance. It said it did not portray the scrapyard as a fun place. It used the scrapyard as a stylised American setting, and the 'pop-video' type location was intended to be fantastical. The scrapyard was a backdrop for the action and not part of the action. The agency told us that the teenagers were not seen playing with or on the cars and derived pleasure from interacting with each other not the vehicles. It said that most of the commercial was of the youngsters splashing through mud and puddles, it did not consider this was dangerous or controversial behaviour.

Delegates’ Decision – Upheld (in part)
Point 1 – 4 upheld, 7 not upheld
Point 2 – 10 upheld, 1 not upheld

On the issue of the kiss, the majority of delegates felt the ad was acceptable and didn’t warrant a ban or further timing restriction.  Many delegates commented that the kiss was no worse than would be seen on a soap opera or other programme that children might see.  Delegates were more concerned about the safety issue with many suggesting a timing restriction to ensure the ad was not seen by young children.  But, as with the Travelocity ad, some felt the ASA would be interfering too much by banning the ad on an issue of safety.

ASA Council Decision – Upheld (both points)

1. The ASA disagreed with the agency that it was common to see such an explicit kiss in a programme before the 9pm watershed. The programmes it mentioned were aimed at a teenage audience. Whilst the inclusion of a French kiss would not necessarily exceed the expectations of an audience that chose to watch programmes like this, the restriction imposed would only exclude the advertisement from children’s programmes and therefore could be seen at any other time of the day by younger children, and also by viewers who would not normally expect to see such passionate kissing out of context of a drama programme. The kiss was much too graphic for the timing restriction that had been imposed.

2. The ASA Council believed that it was irresponsible to show a car scrapyard as an adventurous place to hang out with friends. The actors may have been 18 or over, but the advertisement nonetheless contained scenes that would be of particular appeal to children; the teenagers were obviously enjoying themselves. Younger, more impressionable children could see their actions, which could be easily copied, as cool. The commercial was not 'fantastical' but set in an ordinary car scrapyard, with young people splashing about in mud and puddles. The ASA considered that the scrapyard was more than just background, and that the teenagers had interacted with the cars. The kissing couple were shown inside a wrecked car with smashed windows, obviously having climbed into it. The possibility for harm was clearly evident.   Although the advertising might have been aimed at 16-34 year olds, the timing restriction was inadequate in keeping the material away from children aged 9 to 12 plus. The commercial gave the impression that a car scrapyard was a fun place to play. Older children would be more likely to be out with a group of friends, without adult supervision, and interested in exploring. Because of the likely appeal to children there was, in our view, a serious and realistic risk of harm. The ASA considered that the advertisement was unsuitable to be shown at any time.

Click here to read the full adjudication