CAP News

Don't copy the 'copy cat' ads

07 June 2005

The ASA has recently ruled on complaints that have objected that children might emulate dangerous or anti-social behaviour depicted in ads. The advertising codes for both broadcast and non-broadcast media cover emulation and the ASA has acted to ensure that ads that break the relevant code no longer have the potential to cause harm to kids.

A look at those recent decisions indicates what the ASA thinks is acceptable in ads and where it thinks the line of acceptability has been crossed.

First, what are the rules? Because BCAP adopted codes originally written by the ITC and by the Radio Authority, the wording of the TV, radio and non-broadcast codes is different but they all cover the same ideas:

Ads should not cause serious or widespread offence.
Ads should not cause undue harm or distress
Ads should contain nothing that might provoke anti-social or violent behaviour
Ads should contain nothing that is likely to result in the physical, mental or moral harm of children.

For the relevant clauses in each of the three codes, see the end of this article.

Wanadoo forced to scrap ad

A recent TV commercial for the Internet Service Provider, Wanadoo, featured a group of teenagers in a scrapyard that was full of wrecked and smashed cars. To the soundtrack of rock music, the children ran 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 French kissing on the back seat. The BACC gave the ad an ex-kids restriction, meaning it should not be shown around programmes made for children. The ASA, however, decided that the ad’s potential to cause harm warranted its withdrawal. It considered that the commercial irresponsibly portrayed the teenagers running and messing about in and between rows of stacked cars without concern and gave no sense of the possible dangers of such behaviour.

Keeping the ad away from children

The ASA’s rationale for rejecting the timing restriction placed on the ad by the BACC is interesting. The ASA considered that, although the advertisement might have been targeted at 16 to 34 year olds, the timing restriction was inadequate for keeping the material away from children aged 9 and over. 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, the commercial posed a serious and realistic risk of harm.

Click here to read the adjudication.

Nissan online ad too X-treme for ASA.

The Internet continues to grow as an advertising medium trusted and used by consumers and advertisers. The CAP Code, which applies to non-broadcast ads, sales promotions and direct marketing, helps to secure consumer confidence in the ads that appear in paid-for space on UK websites. The application of the Code by the ASA led to the withdrawal of two banner ads for Nissan cars. Both ads were set in a kitchen. One showed a man putting a spoonful of instant coffee in his mouth before taking a kettle from a cooker and raising it to his mouth. The other showed a man taking an iron, lying on the floor and then lowering the iron towards his chest. Those ads led to complaints that the ads were irresponsible because they could encourage emulation among children. The advertisers said the ads were not intended to be taken seriously and were targeted at adults aged 35 to 55. The ASA, however, considered that the ads were featured on websites that were likely to be seen by children and decided that they were irresponsible, because they could encourage emulation by children.

Click here to read the ASA adjudication.

Reebok ad gets a bad rap

The American rapper, 50 Cent, was featured in a recent TV commercial for the sportswear company, Reebok. He was shown sitting in a large darkened room while various sounds were heard including rap music, sirens and different voices saying he had been “gunned down” and “taken to Jamaica hospital” and later that he was “best male hip hop artist”. Water that seemed to flash red was seen dripping. The voiceover said “shot nine times” and 50 Cent slowly counted from one to nine. (He had been personally involved in a drive-by incident in which he was shot nine times.) Towards the end of the commercial, another voice asks 50 Cent “who do you plan to massacre next?” He laughs briefly then stares towards the camera. The ASA upheld complaints that:

• the ads irresponsibly glorified or glamorised gun culture and could encourage violence or make it seem acceptable and

• the ads could influence younger viewers who might think the violent background of 50 Cent was 'cool' and something to aspire to.

In its ruling, the ASA considered the subject matter unsuitable, especially because of the recent high profile of specific gun-related crime in some areas of Britain as highlighted by the complainants. Although the ad referred to the more positive aspects of 50 Cent's life, such as winning an award, that did not seem to result from an attempt by the character to overcome or avoid violence. The nature of the complaints the ASA received demonstrated the serious offence was caused to viewers.

Click here to read the adjudication.

Getting it right

The ASA does not uphold all complaints it receives about ads that could potentially lead to emulation of harmful or irresponsible acts. For example, the ASA recently rejected complaints about a KFC TV commercial that showed women in a call centre singing a song praising the advertiser’s chicken salad while eating it. Despite being the most complained about ad ever, with many complaints being about the ad encouraging children to speak with their mouth full, the ASA decided the ad did not break the TVCode because it considered that children already brought up with "table manners" were unlikely to change their behaviour adversely after seeing the ad.

Click here to read the adjudication.

Advertisers should note that an ad that features unsafe, potentially harmful behaviour that might be emulated by the young might, at the very least, generate complaints and could ultimately be banned by the ASA. The BACC and RACC will of course advise broadcast advertisers and agencies on how to get it right. They will take into account recent ASA decisions and will use their experience of what historically has been considered acceptable in their relevant media and what the ASA is likely to decide if called upon to do so. The CAP Copy Advice team can of course be consulted for advice about non-broadcast ads, sales promotion and direct marketing campaigns.

TV Code:

6.2 Violence and cruelty

Advertisements must not encourage or condone violence or cruelty

7.3.1 Harm and Distress (Children) -

Advertisements must not contain material which could lead to social, moral or psychological harm to children

Negative or anti-social attitudes reflected in commercials may endorse similar attitudes amongst children. For example, advertisements should not:

(a) present criminal activities in a way which is likely to condone comparable behaviour in real life. (Scenarios which are clearly comedy or drama do not generally cause problems.)

(b) disparage education, high personal standards or caring qualities

(d) present aggression as admirable or suggest it is an acceptable means of resolving problems or getting one’s own way in real life.

Radio Code:

10 Harm -

Advertising must not harm listeners nor exploit, either personally or financially, their vulnerability. No advertising is acceptable from those who practise or advocate illegal or harmful, or potentially harmful behaviour.

No advertisement may encourage or condone behaviour which is harmful or prejudicial to health and safety. This does not preclude responsible advertisements for products and services which, used to excess or abused, could endanger health or safety.

Non-broadcast Code:

Fear and Distress

9.1 No marketing communication should cause fear or distress without good reason. Marketers should not use shocking claims or images merely to attract attention.

10.1 Marketing communications should not condone or encourage unsafe practices. Particular care should be taken with marketing communications addressed to or depicting children (see section 47).

47.2 Marketing communications addressed to, targeted at or featuring children should contain nothing that is likely to result in their physical, mental or moral harm:

a they should not be encouraged to enter strange places or talk to strangers. Care is needed when they are asked to make collections, enter schemes or gather labels, wrappers, coupons and the like

b they should not be shown in hazardous situations or behaving dangerously in the home or outside except to promote safety. Children should not be shown unattended in street scenes unless they are old enough to take responsibility for their own safety. Pedestrians and cyclists should be seen to observe the Highway Code

c they should not be shown using or in close proximity to dangerous substances or equipment without direct adult supervision. Examples include matches, petrol, certain medicines and household substances as well as certain electrical appliances and machinery, including agricultural equipment d they should not be encouraged to copy any practice that might be unsafe for a child.

Violence and anti-social behaviour
11.1

Marketing communications should contain nothing that condones or is likely to provoke violence or anti-social behaviour.