Tragic events

07 September 2005

The ASA Council ruled this Ryanair ad was acceptable under the CAP Code.

All advertisers have a duty to avoid causing serious or widespread offence but judging the prevailing standards of taste and decency can prove a tricky business.  It is especially difficult if only because what offends one person does not necessarily offend the next.  Sometimes advertisers misjudge the public mood.  The subjective nature of offence explains why even the most carefully planned campaign can provoke a negative reaction from the public and result in complaints to the ASA.  What can be even more difficult to judge or predict, however, is how the public will react to advertising in or around the occurrence of a tragic event.

In the wake of 9.11, the Asian Tsunami and most recently the 7.7 bombings complaints about advertising campaigns the public found offensive, in bad taste or ill judged escalated dramatically.  An increase in complaints after a disaster or tragedy doesn’t necessarily mean advertisers have got it wrong but it does  highlight the problems they face when a tragic event heightens sensitivities and alters the public’s tolerance and perception of what is and is not acceptable in an ad.

Sometimes causing upset is unavoidable.  Advertisers plan months in advance and campaigns that seemed innocuous when conceived can suddenly have unfortunate and unintentional connotations with, or seem disrespectful to, an unforeseen catastrophe. A good example is an advertisement for Thomson Holidays that featured an animated man walking along while a series of exotic backdrops passed behind him.  At one stage, he had to break into a run to escape an incoming wave.  Although that would, in normal circumstances, raise no complaints at all, it happened to coincide with the Asian Tsunami.  Several members of the public objected that the wave was tasteless and unsuitable in light of the natural disaster.  Other travel industry advertisements on TV and posters that invariably featured exotic locations and images of waves lapping on beaches provoked similar complaints.

The ASA did not uphold the complaints.  It decided that, although some viewers were unfortunately reminded of the disaster, the wave depicted was not so reminiscent of the tsunami’s violence and destruction that it would cause unacceptable offence.  The advertiser nevertheless produced an edited version of the ad with the wave removed.

Around the time of the Tsunami, the press reported how major advertisers were forced to withdraw their ads or delay their launch because of the imagery that they intended to use.  Pepsi were on the verge of launching a huge ad campaign featuring David Beckham riding on a giant wave but decided to postpone it  to avoid upsetting public sensibilities

Advertisers obviously cannot legislate for unforeseen tragic events but, if one occurs, they can make provisions to minimize any potential offence.  By either withdrawing their ad from the press or TV or targeting it more carefully in the schedules or print media, they can respond to public concern.  BCAP’s  rules on the Scheduling of Advertising require broadcasters to be sensitive in the scheduling of advertisements:

“4.1.2  Particular sensitivity is required in relation to advertising inserted in or around news programmes where a news item, especially one of a tragic nature, may completely transform the context in which an advertisement having some apparent connection with it may be perceived by viewers.  In some cases of this kind a separation from news references may be insufficient and it may be preferable to suspend the advertising altogether in order to avoid distress or offence.”

When a TV commercial for American Express featuring an American surfer riding a giant wave appeared on ITV and C4 after news bulletins that contained upsetting footage from the Tsunami, it wasn’t long before viewers contacted the ASA to lodge their complaints.  Although ITV and C4 soon decided that the imagery in the ad was unsuitable and withdrew the ad immediately, the episode illustrates just how quick public reaction can be.  The ASA upheld the complaints in part, judging that the ads should not have been broadcast after news programmes featuring footage of the disaster.  But the ASA  believed the ad was not distasteful when broadcast away from news programmes and thought generally the scheduling of the ad was acceptable.

Although the non-broadcast CAP Code does not have specific clauses that cover advertising in relation to tragic events, the ASA judges ads on the context in which they appear.  Recently, Ryanair provoked a huge volume of complaints when shortly after 7.7 it placed a national press ad featuring a photo of Winston Churchill making a victory sign.  Text in a speech bubble parodied his famous wartime speech by saying “We shall fly them to the beaches, we shall fly them to the hills, we shall fly them to London!”  Text below outlined the flight offers between European cities.  Over 200 people complained in one day and in total 319 objected that the ad was offensive and distressing, because it sought to use the recent bomb attacks in London for commercial gain.

Ryanair defended its campaign by arguing it tapped into the spirit of defiance of terrorism that Londoners had demonstrated over the past 30 years.  Ryanair believed it was a positive message and was published eight days after the attacks, a suitably respectful length of time to wait.  Although it acknowledged that many people had found the ad extremely tasteless, the ASA took into account the reports, made by many media commentators after the attacks, that highlighted the positive and determined response of Londoners.  Because Ryanair had restricted the theme of the ad to the stoical response witnessed in the capital,the ASA judged the ad not to have caused serious or widespread offence or promoted distress. Click here to read the adjudication.

Similarly, a press ad for Lucozade in the style of a child’s drawing featured a sick child saying “I hate Lucozade because it gets me back to school” and a large bottle of Lucozade being attacked by planes and tanks prompted a complaint that it was offensive and distasteful, because the bottle looked like one of the twin towers in the 9.11 attacks.  The ASA Council decided that the ad used the idea of a child’s view of the world and, in that context, was unlikely to be interpreted as a reference to the terrorist attacks.

Generally, if a tragic event unfortunately takes place, advertisers have shown that they can be quick to gauge public opinion.  Although it has sometimes proved to be almost impossible to avoid causing offence, either by running an ad that in some way consumers interpret as relating to a disaster or by choosing a message that the public sees as distasteful, the common-sense approach is one of treading carefully.  Not only will that stop an advertiser alienating consumers, it illustrates how seriously the industry takes its approach to socially responsible advertising.