Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad for the Nissan Note featured a soundtrack that seemingly had the lyrics "What's the colour of the next car. It's red you bastard, yeah red you bastard. Don't believe in God, but believe in this shit ...". The ad featured scenes of a couple driving through a tunnel and being approached by ghosts, supernatural creatures with fluorescent swords on hover boards and on motorcycles, and being stopped by a giant jack-in-a-box.
Issue
Two viewers complained about the ad. The first challenged whether:
1. the swearing in the ad was offensive and unsuitable for children to hear; and
2. the reference to "Don't believe in God, but believe in this" was offensive to viewers who did believe in God.
3. The second complainant, who believed young children would be frightened by the ad, challenged whether it was suitable for children to see.
Response
1. Nissan Motor (GB) Ltd (Nissan) said they had commissioned a "clean" version of the song "Evil Eye" by Franz Ferdinand for use as a backing track, which did not feature any swearing. They said the words in question on the version of the song in the ad were "basket" and "schtick". They added that the lyrics of the song were barely discernible in the ad.
Clearcast said at pre-approval stage, they were not made aware of and nor did they hear any swear words in the ad. They watched a number of edits subsequently that included the soundtrack, but no swearing was detected. Once they received the complaint, they approached the advertising agency who advised that they had used the 'radio' edit of the track, which omitted the swear words.
2. Nissan again stated that the lyrics of the song were barely discernible in the ad. They said the lyrics referring to God in particular were difficult to hear as they featured at the same time as a "beep" from the safety shield system of the vehicle in the ad, which made them all but impossible to make out. They said that even if the lyrics could be heard, the music was used in the background to provide atmosphere, and was a peripheral aspect of the ad taken as a whole. They said there was nothing in the content of the ad to suggest or imply anything irreligious. In the context of modern society and the everyday language and imagery concerning the existence or non-existence of God, Nissan considered it unlikely that the use of the lyrics in an ad that had nothing to do with religion and made no criticism of religion would cause serious or widespread offence to the average viewer.
3. Nissan said they intentionally created the ad to be a light-hearted depiction of a drive through a surreal modern day ghost train. They said the characters featured in the ad were shown fleetingly and it was clear that neither of the people in the vehicle were visibly threatened or afraid of them. They pointed out that the characters were computer-generated and in no way realistic. The characters were juxtaposed against stylised and bright visual imagery, and there was nothing dark or sinister about the overall nature or tone of the ad, which they believed was light-hearted. Nissan said it was improbable that the ad would scare the average child viewer. They added that the ad was no scarier than other ads depicting similar characters that had no scheduling restrictions, and no scarier than many TV shows, computer games, books or theatre productions aimed at children.
Clearcast acknowledged that some younger viewers may find the ghost train theme scary, and that some of the characters including the jack-in-the-box may upset them. They attributed a 32 presentation code to the approval of the ad, which instructed children's channels to view the ad to assess its suitability for their channel. They discussed an ex-kids timing restriction, which would mean that it would not be broadcast in or around programmes of particular appeal to children. However, they decided against this based on the fact that the protagonists looked calm about entering the attraction and their reaction to the things around them was passive and not one of fright. They also noted that the protagonists were not harmed and the tone of the ad was relaxed and not intended to scare.
Clearcast felt that the low number of complaints indicated that this hasn't caused wide spread offence, nor had it been inappropriately scheduled.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA was satisfied that the radio edit of "Evil Eye" was used in the ad and this version of the song did not contain any swear words. We considered whether the words "basket" and "schtick", which replaced the swear words in the original version of the song, sounded enough like swearing to be likely to cause offence.
We noted that while the song played in the background during the ad, a number of other noises could be heard throughout, for example the noise made by the jack-in-the-box springing up, the laughter of the ghostly characters and the "beep" from the safety shield system of the car. Nonetheless, we considered that the words "basket" and "schtick" could clearly be made out and while viewers who were familiar with the original version of the song might mistake those lyrics for the swear words contained in the original version, it was unlikely that the viewers and particularly children would believe they had heard swear words and be offended.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules
4.2
4.2
Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.
(Harm and offence) and
5.1
5.1
Advertisements that are suitable for older children but could distress younger children must be sensitively scheduled (see Section 32: Scheduling).
(Children), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We again noted that the lyrics of the song might be difficult to hear amongst the other noises in the ad, but we considered whether the lyric "Don't believe in God" could cause offence to those who did hear them.
We appreciated that the lyric expressed a view that would be at odds with the beliefs of some people, but we acknowledged that there was nothing else in the ad's content to suggest criticism of religion or belief in God, and the lyric was given no prominence. We concluded that, given the context of the ad, the lyric 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.
3. Not upheld
We noted that the ad depicted a couple driving through a tunnel that resembled a ghost train, with supernatural characters jumping out and following them. We acknowledged that the noises featured in the ad, including the supernatural characters' laughter, and the backing song gave the ad a spooky atmosphere. However, we also noted that the couple did not seem to be at all threatened or scared of the characters, and were safely locked inside the car. The couple was depicted smiling and seemingly enjoying themselves throughout the ride in the tunnel, even when directly confronted by the characters, for example when the jack-in-the-box sprang up in front of them.
We noted that Clearcast had instructed children's channels to view the ad to assess its suitability for their channel before screening it, and we concluded that that was sufficient.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 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 necessary.
