Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV and cinema ad for gocompare.com, the price comparison website.
a. The TV ad showed people on a coach tour to "LlandofsavingmoneyandgettingtherightdealgogoGoCompare". The ad featured three passengers who discussed savings on car insurance and credit cards. During the ad, a tour guide was shown standing in the aisle talking with passengers and one of the passengers was shown kneeling on her seat to talk to a couple on the row behind.
b. The cinema ad was the same as ad (a).
Issue
1. Three of the complainants, one of which was a coach hire company, challenged whether ad (a), which they believed showed behaviour that did not comply with the law on wearing seat belts on coaches, was irresponsible and harmful.
2. One complainant challenged whether ad (b) was irresponsible and harmful on the same grounds.
3. Two of the complainants challenged whether ad (a) was irresponsible because it condoned or encouraged behaviour that prejudiced health or safety.
Response
1., 2. & 3. Gocompare.com Ltd (Gocompare) said they acknowledged the fact that the ads would be viewed by adults and children and had considered the legal position under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and guidance from The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA). They said that they were advised that it was not a legal requirement for passengers to wear seat belts, even if they were fitted. However, the advice was that if seat belts were fitted, they should be worn. They said in relation to coaches, passengers sitting in seats that were in line with, or in front of the driver must use seat belts that were fitted.
Gocompare said the coach featured in the ads was a vintage model and seat belts would not have been fitted. They said, had the coach been fitted with seat belts, they would have ensured that, in compliance with section 15B of the Road Traffic Act 1988, passengers wore a seat belt when the bus was in motion and that Gio, the driver of the bus, took all reasonable steps that ensured passengers wore their seat belt when the bus was in motion. They also said that the coach had been used in previous campaigns and was likely to have been modified on numerous occasions.
Clearcast said when they first saw the ad they were concerned about the shot of the woman who lent over her seat to talk with the couple sat behind. They said the agency confirmed that the coach used in the ads was vintage and did not have seat belts fitted and they concurred with the advertiser regarding the advice they were provided with in relation to the wearing of seatbelts.
In relation to ad (b), the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) said they understood that all seated passengers must wear seat belts, where fitted, and that all new coaches must have them fitted or retro fitted in older coaches if that was possible. They said the driver was clearly shown wearing a seat belt, however, due to framing and the position of the tour guides arm, it was not possible to see whether she was wearing one. In relation to the tour guide standing in the aisle, they said it was often the case that a tour guide moved up and down the coach to speak with passengers, similar to an air steward carrying out their duties.
The CAA said the passenger talking to the couple behind was clearly kneeling on the seat and therefore extremely unlikely to have a seat belt fastened because she was not seated. However, they felt that this could be acceptable as a backward facing position was considered safer than facing forward. They said that the law did not expect that passengers would remain seated or be wearing seat belts at all times and that long distance coaches would have had toilets and coffee machines which could be used by passengers when the coach was moving. Furthermore, they said passengers on long journeys were positively recommended to move about from time to time to avoid deep vein thrombosis.
Assessment
1., 2. & 3. Not upheld
The ASA understood that current legislation required a seat belt to be worn for children 14 years of age and over and adults if they were riding in a front or rear seat of a coach in which seatbelts were fitted, and that failure to do so was an offence by the passenger. We noted that the coach used in the ads did not appear to be vintage, particularly as it had modern wing mirrors, and we understood it was in fact a 2008 model, although it had been painted in "vintage" colours. We understood that a coach of that age was required to have seat belts fitted and maintained and that it was an offence for a coach operator to remove the seat belts. We noted that the ads showed only the coach driver wearing a seat belt and that it wasn't possible to tell if lap-fitted seat belts were fitted or being worn by the seated passengers.
The BCAP Code stated that ads must not condone or encourage behaviour that prejudices health or safety or a breach of the Highway Code, and the CAP Code stated that ads must not condone or encourage unsafe or irresponsible driving. We considered that passengers travelling on coaches would be aware that seat belts should be worn, if fitted, when the vehicle was in motion. Furthermore, we understood that operators were required by law to highlight this requirement to passengers.
We noted the ads featured a parody of a bus tour excursion, with a destination for 'consumers' to find potential savings on car insurance and credit cards. We considered that consumers would understand it was light-hearted in nature, especially given the final destination of the trip, "LlandofsavingmoneyandgettingtherightdealgogoGoCompare", which was a play on the name of the Welsh town of "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwll-llantysiliogogogoch", and the conversation between the passengers about their previous and current trips to the destination.
Because the ads was clearly a parody of a bus tour excursion for a price comparison website, in which the wearing of seatbelts was incidental to the main message of the ads, we considered it had not condoned or encouraged a breach of the requirements of the Highway Code, unsafe driving or behaviour that prejudiced health or safety, and we concluded the ads were not irresponsible.
We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 1.2 1.2 Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society. (Responsible advertising), 4.4 4.4 Advertisements must not include material that is likely to condone or encourage behaviour that prejudices health or safety. (Harm and offence) and 20.2 20.2 Advertisements must not condone or encourage a breach of the legal requirements of the Highway Code. (Motoring) but did not find it in breach.
We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Responsible advertising) and 19.2 19.2 Marketing communications must not condone or encourage unsafe or irresponsible driving. If it could be emulated, marketing communications must not depict a driving practice that is likely to condone or encourage a breach of those rules of the Highway Code that are legal requirements if that driving practice seems to take place on a public road or in a public space. Vehicles' capabilities may be demonstrated on a track or circuit if it is obviously not in use as a public highway. (Motoring), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
