ASA Ruling on Hanoi Bike Shop
Hanoi Bike Shop
9 Ruthven Lane
Glasgow
G12 9BG
Date:
10 February 2016
Media:
Poster, Transport
Sector:
Business
Number of complaints:
2
Complaint Ref:
A15-316552
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad
Two posters for a noodle bar seen on a train on 19 October and at a train station on 13 November featured text that stated, “GET YOUR NOODLE ON! FIRST TUESDAY OF EVERY MONTH FOUR DELICIOUS NOODLE BASED DISHES …”. The posters also showed two slogans with text that stated “PHAT PHUC” … THE HANOI BIKE SHOP”.
Issue
The ASA received complaints from two members of the public:
1. one complainant objected that the ad was offensive because it featured a slogan, which when spoken sounded like a swearword; and
2. one complainant objected that the ad was inappropriate for public display where children could see it because it featured a slogan that sounded like a swearword when spoken.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. & 2.
Hanoi Bike Shop stated that they were a Vietnamese canteen and that “Phat Phuc” was the name of an event that had been running since March 2015 and was also used for naming some of their noodle dishes. They clarified that “Phat Phuc” in Vietnamese was pronounced “Fet Fook” and meant “Happy Buddha”.
Primesight believed that the creative was suitable for outdoor display on the basis that when pronounced correctly, “Phuc” did not sound like a swear word. Furthermore, they stated that one complaint had been made directly to them and that they had responded accordingly.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA understood that the word “happy” in Vietnamese was correctly spelt as “Phuc” and although it was pronounced as “Fook”, we acknowledged that it sounded similar to the expletive "fuck".
However, we noted that the Hanoi Bike Shop sold Far Eastern cuisine, which both posters had made sufficiently clear. In the context of the posters, we considered that viewers who might have been offended by bad language were likely to recognise that “Phuc” was from a reference to Southeast Asian language, was different from the expletive and would not necessarily be pronounced in the same way. We therefore, concluded that the posters were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point we investigated the posters under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and Offence), but did not find them in breach.
2. Not upheld
As mentioned above, we acknowledged that while the expletive had not been used, the two words, depending on the pronunciation, might sound similar. However, we considered that younger children who were unlikely to comprehend that “Phuc” was a Vietnamese word were also unlikely to read or pronounce it as the expletive. While some older children might have pronounced it as the expletive, given the context of an ad for a Vietnamese restaurant and that the word was taken from this language we did not consider that this made it unsuitable for them to see. We therefore concluded that the posters were not irresponsibly placed where children could see them.
On this point we investigated the posters under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social Responsibility), but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
