Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.

Ad description

A TV ad for Halfords featured two men in a garage. The older man was fitting a battery in the younger man's car. The older man said, "You're good to go then", to which the younger man replied, "Thanks so much Bob. Let me know if I can ever return the favour." Bob said, "There is one thing. Pose for me David. I'm tired of painting you from memory." David smiled weakly while Bob stood holding a paint palette and paintbrush. The garage door was seen slowly closing. A voice-over stated "At Halfords we fit batteries in the car park from £6.99. Much cheaper than a favour." The final shot showed a series of paintings. One painting was of a centaur with a naked torso and David's face. Others were sketches of a nude man. On-screen text stated "#WorstFavour. halfords we ft. Cheaper than a favour".

Issue

1. Some of the complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive, because it was sexually suggestive and implied that an older man was taking advantage of a younger man in a sexual way. Some of the complainants referred to the Jimmy Savile case and drew parallels between the ad and teenagers being groomed for sexually explicit pictures by paedophiles.

2. Some of the complainants challenged whether the ad was unsuitable for children to see.

Response

Halfords Ltd said the ad was one of a series based on the theme of unpleasant favours, which intended to make clear that it would be easier and more convenient to visit Halfords to get car maintenance done than get stuck owing someone a favour. They said the ad was intended to be light-hearted and surreal due to the absurd situation of a stereotypical, hands-on, manly mechanic being revealed as artistic and cultured. They said the feeling of surrealism was enhanced by the use of a centaur, which was an image of total fiction and fantasy. They added that there was no sense of aggression or force within the imagery or dialogue, and they noted that Bob, who made a request of David that any amateur or professional still-life artist might make, did so in a meek and mild mannered way.

Halfords said there were no overt suggestions of sexual activity between the two characters and the nude sketches within the end frames were normal within the context of standard art sketches. They said the sketches alluded to famous greats such as the culturally acceptable nude form sketches by Leonardo da Vinci and Degas.

Halfords noted that the ad featured two men over the age of 25. They noted that the actor who played David had a playing age of 26 to 35 years. They said the ad was not targeted towards anyone under the age of 18. They noted that car maintenance was generally a hobby of those over 18 and the setting, clothing and the car would not be interesting in any way to children. They said if there were deemed be any innuendo in the ad, it was extremely subtle and unlikely to be understood by children.

Clearcast said they were perplexed by the notion of any parallels between the Halfords ad, which featured two adult men with no sexual content, and the Jimmy Savile case. They said it would be inappropriate and contrary to the brand identity for a Halfords ad to work around a narrative of sexual predation.

They said the ad was clearly intended to focus playfully on an awkward favour being granted to a friend as thanks for their help. Bob was struggling to draw his friend Dave from memory alone and asked him to pose for a painting. They said it was clear that initially Bob was aware that this was an awkward request but, emboldened by his passion for art, he boldly asked his friend to sit for him. Clearcast noted that the end frame that revealed the finished painting was not sexually explicit and it only showed Dave as topless as he had been painted as a centaur. They said the remaining rough sketches seen in the background were typical of what one might see novice artists producing whilst trying to hone their skills at drawing the human form.

Clearcast maintained that there was nothing in the ad that would suggest an element of grooming or an attempt to acquire sexually explicit pictures. They understood why some viewers may be particularly sensitive to this topic, partly owing to the heavy media focus on child grooming and paedophilia over the last year, but they did not agree with that interpretation of the narrative.

Assessment

1. Not Upheld

The ASA understood that in an ad based on the theme of owing an unpleasant favour, an older man asking a younger man to pose for him could be considered inappropriate. However, we considered that the overall tone of the ad was supposed to be light-hearted and surreal and, while Bob was noticeably older than David, David was clearly a grown man in his twenties.

We considered that some viewers might interpret the events of the ad to mean that Bob thought about David in a sexual way but, while we noted that Bob clearly considered David a muse for his paintings, as evidenced by his comment "I'm tired of painting you from memory", we did not consider that his actions or behaviour went further than that. Although we acknowledged that David looked uncomfortable at being asked to pose for Bob, it did not seem to be because he was concerned about Bob's intentions or thought Bob was interested in him in a sexual way. Bob seemed shy and embarrassed when asking David to pose for him and we considered that David's reaction was an awkward laugh of disbelief rather than one of fear or concern. We noted that after Bob had made his request, the garage door slowly closed as Bob faced David, holding his palette and paintbrush. We noted that this could have connotations of entrapment or secrecy, but considered it was not unusual for a model posing for a painting to do so in private.

We noted that David appeared shirtless in Bob's sketches and it was not clear whether they were painted before or after the encounter. However, we accepted that they were the sort of sketches an amateur artist would be likely to produce and we considered the images, particularly the one depicting David as a centaur, were more likely to be considered bizarre than sexual or sinister. Overall, while we acknowledged that many viewers found the ad distasteful, we considered it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule  4.2 4.2 Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.  (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.

2. Not Upheld

We noted that a number of complainants had interpreted sexual tension and sinister tones in the ad and felt that Bob's behaviour was predatory. However, we considered that there were no overt suggestions of sexual activity between the two characters. While we noted that David appeared shirtless in Bob's completed painting, we considered that he was depicted as a centaur, a mythical creature that was traditionally pictured shirtless with the legs of a horse, and that the resulting image was fantastical rather than sexual. We noted that around the completed painting were rudimentary sketches of a naked torso and back, but they were not graphic or explicit. We considered that any sexual innuendo or imagery in the ad was subtle and was unlikely to be noticed by children and we therefore concluded that the ad was suitable for children to see.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules  4.1 4.1 Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18.  (Harm and offence) and  32.3 32.3 Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them.  (Scheduling), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

BCAP Code

32.3     4.1     4.2    


More on