Whilst an ad masquerading as something else may feel novel and fun, the CAP Code states that all ads should be identifiable as marketing communications. In recent times, the ASA has ruled on a couple of ads that resembled fake parking tickets. Neither advertiser made it clear that they were an ad and both caused unjustified distress.
Stay in your lane – make it obvious
Under the CAP Code, marketing communications must be obviously identifiable and must make clear their commercial intent, if it is not apparent from the context. By making their ads resemble parking tickets and placing them on consumers’ windscreens, two advertisers failed to do that.
The first advertiser, Big Fang Collective Ltd, placed their leaflet in a yellow and black plastic wrapper which stated, “PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE ENCLOSED” and “WARNING. It is an offence for any person other than the driver to remove this notice”.
When opened, the leaflet claimed “MADE YOU LOOK!... DO NOT WORRY YOUR PARKING IS SPOT ON”, before advertising an indoor golf venue.
Parc AI Ltd used a similar wrapper, and inside the leaflet, which advertised their car parking app, said, “NEVER GET A PARKING TICKET AGAIN…SO sorry if we gave you a scare. Seeing what looks like a parking fine can ruin your day in seconds. This one isn't real, promise. But that horrible sinking feeling you just had is awful. We know it, you know it”. Further text stated "THIS IS NOT A FINE. YOU OWE NO MONEY …Now that you're relieved you didn't get hit with a parking tickets… Again we are sorry if we gave you a scare. This isn't a real parking fine. But if you did actually get one today...that's exactly the kind of stress we're trying to stop”.
The ASA concluded that both ads were not identifiable as marketing communications.
Even if it’s unlikely you would produce a fake parking ticket for your business, there are other ways in which ads might not be obvious. For example, Health Bridge Ltd failed to make an advertorial on Mumsnet obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. And Ben’s Gutters disguised their ad as a handwritten note posted through the door.
So it’s worth considering whether this could apply to any of your ads. Every ad, regardless of medium, needs to be easily identifiable as a marcom.
Shock tactics! Avoid distress
The ASA also decided that the parking notice ads above caused “unjustifiable distress”. The Code states that ads must not cause distress without justifiable reason, and not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention.
You might wonder why any ad would seek to cause distress, but Campaign Against Living Miserably is an example of a TV ad that did just that. It showed personal video clips of men and women laughing, smiling, talking to the camera and interacting with others before on-screen text pointed out that they were people who had taken their own lives.
The ASA found the ad not to have breached the Code because, while it was likely to be distressing to some, not only did it have a scheduling restriction, but the overall message was intended to save lives, justifying the distress.
Whilst this distress was justifiable, the same could not be said for the parking-ticket ads.
Consider all audiences
It’s hard to imagine anyone not being distressed at finding what looks like a parking ticket on their car, but marketers should consider all their potential audience. It could be that some with particular vulnerabilities will be especially affected by an ad. Here, the ASA were conscious that those facing financial difficulties would find the prospect of a parking ticket especially distressing.
Not sure if your ad is identifiable, or whether it may be likely to cause distress? Contact our Copy Advice team for help with any upcoming campaigns!
More on
-
Keep up to date
Sign up to our rulings, newsletters and emargoed access for Press. Subscribe now.
