ASA Ruling on Inspop.com Ltd
Inspop.com Ltd t/a
Confused.com
Greyfriars House
Greyfriars Road
Cardiff
CF10 3AL
Date:
16 October 2013
Media:
Television
Sector:
Financial
Number of complaints:
137
Agency:
Publicis Ltd
Complaint Ref:
A13-235255
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated all of which were Not upheld.
Ad
A TV ad, for Confused.com, a car insurance comparison website, featured a robot called Brian, knocking on the window of a parked car. The man, seated in the driving seat of the car, was startled and the woman, seated in the passenger seat, who was bent down out of view, sprang upright. The character Brian said "I've run your details through my extensive circuits resulting in a saving of £225 on your car insurance". The man said "That's alright, that is" to which Brian responded "Who is our daddy?" The man said "I don't know."
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post 21:00 restriction.
Issue
Objections to the ad were received from 137 complainants.
1. The majority of complainants objected that the ad was offensive, because they believed there was implied reference to oral sex.
2. A number of complainants objected that the ad was unsuitable for children to see.
3. A small number of complainants objected that the ad was offensive, because it was degrading to women.
BCAP Code
Response
1., 2. & 3. Inspop.com Ltd t/a Confused.com believed the ad was not likely to cause offence. They said the ad featured a fully-clothed couple, in their car outside of their house about to set off on a journey. They said the couple were shown to be stunned by the appearance of the robot. They said the woman was shown to sit up from the footwell on her side of the vehicle. They said the delay in the woman seeing the robot allowed for a comedic shock reaction to the appearance of the robot. They said neither the man nor woman showed any indication of inappropriate or sexual activity. They said the ad was aired with the agreed post 21:00 restriction.
Clearcast believed that because no graphic sexual imagery was portrayed and because the ad was scheduled after 21:00, the ad would cause neither harm nor offence. They said the ad showed the woman leaning down into her own footwell, not over the man's lap. They acknowledged that, although no graphic sexual imagery was portrayed, viewers might interpret the ad to mean that oral sex was taking place. They therefore believed the ad amounted to adult humour/suggestiveness. They believed a post 21:00 timing restriction was appropriate. They said that even if viewers believed that the couple were engaged in a sexual act, it appeared that the woman was consenting and did not appear to be in any distress.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that, on close inspection, the woman was shown to rise from the footwell on her side of the vehicle. Notwithstanding that, we acknowledged the complainants' concerns that the presentation of the ad included an implied reference to oral sex. We acknowledged that the dishevelled appearance of the couple; the positioning of the woman; the surrounding location; and the reaction of the couple added to that impression. However, we noted the ad contained no explicit reference to sex and no explicit sexual imagery. Whilst we acknowledged that some viewers might find the ad distasteful, we considered it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered the post 21:00 timing restriction would minimise the risk of younger children seeing the ad. Furthermore, because there was no explicit reference to sex or explicit sexual imagery, we concluded that the timing restriction applied was appropriate.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and Offence) and 32.3 (Scheduling) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted the ad depicted the woman in a state of alarm at the appearance of the robot. We acknowledged that some viewers would interpret the ad as a reference to oral sex. However, we considered the ad did not depict the woman as a sexual object, nor did it suggest that the woman was in distress. On that basis, we concluded that the ad was not likely to be viewed as degrading to women.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
