ASA Ruling on giffgaff Ltd
giffgaff Ltd
260 Bath Road
Slough
Berkshire
SL1 4DX
Date:
28 August 2013
Media:
Television
Sector:
Computers and telecommunications
Number of complaints:
105
Complaint Ref:
A13-232326
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad
A TV ad for the mobile network giffgaff opened with on-screen text that stated "This is an Advertisement" and this text appeared at one-minute intervals throughout the ad. The ad featured a herd of zombies entering a rural village. The zombies groaned and dragged their feet and the village's inhabitants appeared terrified. However, they gradually understood that the zombies had only come to help them.
Scenes included a zombie twisting and pulling his own arm off to help coax a cat down from a tree, a zombie's body on the roof of a house fixing an aerial while the zombie's head watched TV in the living room and a coconut shy where zombies heads rested on stands in the place of coconuts.
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post 9 pm restriction.
Issue
The ASA received 105 complaints:
1. The majority of viewers challenged whether the level of horror and gore was offensive and likely to cause distress.
2. Eleven viewers challenged whether the violence in the ad was offensive and so trivialised a recent news item in which a man had been murdered.
3. Nine viewers challenged whether the ad was suitable for a general viewing audience, which could include children.
4. Four viewers challenged whether it was sufficiently clear that the material being broadcast was an ad.
BCAP Code
Response
giffgaff said the ad was prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and society. They explained that the ad was a parody of the zombie genre and that the objective was to be humorous rather than scary. They said there was no intention to trivialise a recent news item in which a man was murdered. giffgaff believed the ad was unlikely to cause any harm to persons under the age of 18 or cause serious or widespread offence against accepted moral, social or cultural standards. They said that any tension in the ad was dissipated into humour and so was unlikely to cause offence to viewers. giffgaff said they followed Clearcast's guidance for scheduling the ad and it did not air earlier than 10.15 pm, nor did it appear adjacent to any programme directed at or likely to appeal to audiences below the age of 18. giffgaff believed the ad was distinguishable from editorial content, because the ad opened with on-screen text that stated "This is an Advertisement" and this text appeared at one-minute intervals throughout the ad
Clearcast said they approved the ad to air in a one off spot at 10.15 pm, which is over an hour later than the watershed when children under 16 should not have been watching. They explained that the ad opened with on-screen text that stated "This is an Advertisement", which was repeated at one minute intervals throughout its duration. Clearcast believed this made it clear the ad was a promotion and not programming. They said the use of zombies was a creative device used to show consumers that something they were initially afraid of could actually be useful and the turning point of the ad was when a zombie used his own arm to retrieve a cat from a tree. At this point the music changed and Clearcast believed an audience would have then realised the ad was a humorous take on a well-established horror cliché.
Clearcast explained that the depiction of zombies in the ad would not have surprised audiences, who would have been exposed to the zombie genre depicted in a similar manner in a number of modern films and programmes. Clearcast said the ad did not trivialise murder and the fact the release of the ad coincided with a tragic murder was nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence. Clearcast believed the ad did not breach the BCAP Code on harm and offence, scheduling, social responsibility or recognition of advertising.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged that giffgaff intended for the ad to be humorous and a parody of a well-known genre. We recognized that the use of zombies was a creative device to show consumers that something they were initially afraid of could actually be useful. We concluded that the level of horror in the ad was not shocking and fell within a well-established zombie genre that audiences would be familiar with, particularly given the ad was not aired before 10.15 pm. We also noted that the horror in the ad faded as it was made clear the zombies were there to help the village's inhabitants. In this context therefore, we concluded that the level of gore and horror was not offensive or likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1, 4.2 and 4.10 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We acknowledged that the ad contained some blood and gore, as is inherent in the zombie genre. However, we noted that the ad did not depict murder or violence and we therefore concluded, that the ad was not analogous to, nor did it trivialise, a news item in which a man was murdered.
On this point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1, 4.2 and 4.10 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We acknowledged that the ad did not air earlier than 10.15 pm, nor did it air adjacent to any programme directed at, or likely to appeal to audiences below the age of 18. We concluded therefore, that children were unlikely to view the ad and the allocated scheduling was appropriate for the level of horror and provided sufficient protection to audiences aged under 18.
On this point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 32.1 and 32.3 (Scheduling) but did not find it in breach.
4. Not upheld
We acknowledged that the ad opened with a herd of zombies entering a village and there was no mention of giffgaff or the service being advertised. However, we considered the on-screen text that stated "This is an Advertisement" and which appeared at one-minute intervals throughout the ad, was prominent enough on the screen and made it sufficiently clear that the material was an ad, rather than an editorial or programming.
On this point we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 2.1 (Recognition of advertising) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
