Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
Two ads for the radio station, Radio X:
a. A TV ad for the radio station Radio X, broadcast between September and October 2015, featured the DJ Chris Moyles walking down a street. He was shown bumping into a number of people, including a man holding a coffee, a character in a costume and a paramedic pushing someone on a stretcher, and he knocked a cake out of a woman’s hand. He then walked through a wall of the Radio X studio building.
b. A Video On Demand (VOD) ad seen on ITV Player on 13 and 21 October 2015 was the same as ad (a).
Issue
1. Eighty-seven viewers challenged whether ad (a) was offensive and irresponsible because they believed it encouraged and condoned anti-social and violent behaviour.
2. Some viewers challenged whether ad (a) was inappropriately scheduled for broadcast at times when children may be watching.
3. Two viewers challenged whether ad (b) was offensive and irresponsible for the same reason as point 1.
Response
1. This Is Global Ltd said the ad was a parody of The Verve’s iconic music video for the song “Bittersweet Symphony”, which they believed would have been recognisable to the majority of viewers. They added that it was a humorous play on Chris Moyles’ reputation and his determination to ‘get into the music’ and return to radio. They added that the scenarios, which included a charity worker dressed in a giant rabbit costume and a lady inexplicably holding a wedding cake in the street, were executed carefully to ensure a comical, and slightly surreal, tone.
Global said slapstick humour, such as that shown in the ad, was common in children’s programmes and family films, and that it was always set slightly aside from reality and therefore generally caused very little offence. In this case, Chris Moyles’ resolve to get back to radio broadcasting was so strong that he was seen walking through a brick wall and emerging unharmed, which would have made the fantasy context particularly clear to viewers.
Clearcast felt that the tone of the ad was comical and over the top, and neither menacing nor anti-social. They believed that viewers over the age of 16 were likely to recognise and interpret the ad as a clear parody of The Verve’s “Bittersweet Symphony” music video. Furthermore, they considered the ad was unlikely to encourage or condone violent or anti-social behaviour because the contact shown between Chris Moyles and those in the street was slapstick rather than violent. Additionally, the consequence of the contact between Chris Moyles and others in the ad was sufficiently removed from the real world, and in places fantastical enough, so as not to be seen as condoning of anti-social behaviour, or likely to encourage similar behaviour, particularly among children.
Clearcast acknowledged, however, the possibility the ad might offend some viewers but felt confident that the exaggerated and comical nature of behaviour was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and that the ad was unlikely to cause harm to under-18s who might see it.
2. Global said following advice from Clearcast, the ad was subject to an ex-kids restriction and was therefore, scheduled away from children’s programmes, which would have helped to prevent young children, who might not understand the humorous context, from viewing it. They said none of the scenarios were presented in a way that might have made them seem possible, or particularly attractive, to copy and the affected parties reacted appropriately, making clear that Chris Moyles’ actions were unacceptable.
Clearcast said they worked with the agency who assured them that the behaviour shown would be over the top, comical and clearly staged. They noted also the intention of the ad was to parody The Verve’s music video. Clearcast believed that viewers over the age of 16 were likely to recognise the ad as a parody and understand that the behaviour shown was exaggerated, comical and not anti-social. They acknowledged that younger viewers (those under 16) might be influenced by the behaviour shown and because of that, they applied an ‘ex-kids’ scheduling restriction. That restriction prevented the ad from being shown around or during programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 16.
3. Global said ad (b) was carefully placed to reach Radio X’s target adult audience and was restricted from being shown around or during children’s programmes.
Responding in relation to ad (b) only, ITV, the VOD service provider, said the ad was booked and targeted to an ABC1 male demographic audience. They explained there were three different edits of the ad, all of which had run and had had the same scheduling restriction applied as the TV ad. Therefore, all placement of the ad had been restricted from children’s programming. Because of the scheduling restriction, ITV considered the ad was suitable due to the targeting of the ad; that that particular demographic was likely to be aware of the "spoof".
Assessment
1. & 3. Not upheld
The ASA understood the complainants’ concerns about the behaviour shown in the ad and we acknowledged Global’s intention to parody what they believed to be a well-recognised and iconic music video. Although we noted the ad used “Bittersweet Symphony” as its soundtrack, we considered that some viewers were still unlikely to recognise the parody element of the ad.
We considered the context in which the behaviour was shown and noted the eclectic mixture of people that Chris Moyles walked past in such a short amount of time (a business man, a charity collector, a woman holding a wedding cake and a paramedic) together with the end shot in which he was shown walking through a brick wall. While recognisable as an ordinary street, we considered the scenario in which he found himself was likely to be seen as surreal and far removed from the mix of people many were likely to encounter when walking down a street. We acknowledged that his actions in the ad were likely to be seen as unpleasant, but we considered that the context in which it was shown meant viewers were unlikely to interpret it as realistic and as an acceptable way to behave. In the particular circumstances of the ad, we concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen to encourage or condone anti-social behaviour or bullying.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 1.2 Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society. (Social responsibility), 4.2 4.2 Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. and 4.9 4.9 Advertisements must not condone or encourage violence, crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour. (Harm and offence) and 5.4 5.4 Advertisements must not condone or encourage bullying. (Children), but did not find it in breach.
Also on this point, we investigated ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
1.3
1.3
Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
(Social responsibility),
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
and
4.4
4.4
Marketing communications must contain nothing that is likely to condone or encourage violence or anti-social behaviour.
(Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We understood the complainants’ concerns that the ad was inappropriately scheduled and noted that the ad was subject to a scheduling restriction that prevented it from being shown around and during programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 16. We considered younger children were more likely to emulate the behaviour shown; however, we understood the scheduling restriction meant there was a reduced likelihood of those children seeing the ad. We considered older children were likely to recognise that the ad presented undesirable behaviour, but they were also likely to understand the fantastical nature of the ad shown through the varied mix of the people shown in the ad and the end shot of Chris Moyles emerging unscathed from the brick wall. We considered that the scheduling restriction applied was appropriate for the content and therefore, we concluded the ad had not been scheduled inappropriately.
On this point, we investigated 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.
