Background
On 6 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated to reflect the revocation and restatement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs - the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived) by the Unfair Commercial Practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). On that date, the wording of a number of the rules in the Advertising Codes was changed to reflect relevant changes introduced by the DMCCA. Given that the complaint that formed the subject of this ruling was received before 6 April 2025, the ASA considered the ad and complaint under the wording of the rules that existed prior to 6 April 2025, and the Ruling (and references to rules within it) should therefore be read in line with this wording.
Ad description
A TV ad for Monzo Bank and ITV Sport, seen on ITV on 9 February 2025, showed the “monzo” and “ITV Sport” logos. Sports pundit Mark Pougatch appeared in the ITV Sport studio watching a football match on a large screen. A football commentator said, “And Sims backing in, he shoots. How many more chances do they need?” Mark Pougatch put his head in his hands. At the same time as the commentator spoke the following disclaimer was seen on screen, “Pots available with a Monzo Current Account. To apply for an account you must be 16+ and a UK resident. Ts&Cs apply”. Mark Pougatch said, “This is what saving feels like”. He was then shown in a football match crowd holding an ITV Sport microphone and as he and the crowd celebrated a goal, he said, “This is saving with MONZOOOOO!”. The voiceover stated, “Money never felt like Monzo” and the “monzo” and “ITV Sport” logos were shown again. Mark Pougatch was then shown in the ITV Sport studio celebrating with a foam hand.
Issue
The complainant, an advertising industry professional, challenged whether the ad was obviously distinguishable from the surrounding Liverpool and Portsmouth football match on ITV.
Response
Monzo Bank Ltd (Monzo) said the “monzo” logo was prominently displayed at the beginning of the ad, establishing it as an ad from the outset. It further opened with a commentator saying, “And Sims backing in, he shoots. How many more chances do they need?” They said there were no current players for Liverpool or Plymouth called “Sims”. They stated that five seconds into the ad, superimposed text appeared on screen and remained on screen for eight seconds. That was aligned with the recommended 7.6 seconds by Clearcast and was compliant with BCAP guidance on superimposed text. Superimposed text was strongly associated with advertising and so any potential doubts about the nature of the ad would be resolved for a viewer with the appearance of that text. Monzo’s logo was again displayed prominently towards the end of the ad for two seconds, which further reinforced that the content was not editorial but an ad.
They said that at no point did Mark Pougatch do or say anything that would mislead a viewer into thinking they were watching programme footage and all spoken references by Mark Pougatch were in relation to saving with Monzo. Even though the ad featured Mark Pougatch in a football crowd cheering at an imaginary goal being scored and then continuing to celebrate in the ITV Sport studio, the scene was fantastical, over the top in nature and not representative of usual ITV Sport programming content. For example, the instant transition of the presenter from studio to crowd scene was not representative of sports programming. Further, in typical sports programming, a presenter would not be seen celebrating in the crowd or instantly transitioning back to the studio wearing a scarf and foam hand and there was no music in the ad that resembled ITV musical content during sports transmissions.
They said the ad was further distinguishable from editorial content because while the Plymouth team was wearing a green home kit, and the Liverpool team was wearing a white away kit, the spectators in the ad were wearing the hot coral colour associated with the Monzo brand, which also matched the colour of the microphone held by the Mark Pougatch. The team kits were distinct in terms of colour, and the design of the actual Liverpool home kit had narrow yellow lines as opposed to the thick hot coral and white stripes seen in the ad. Football shirts also always featured the team’s sponsor details as well as the sportswear manufacturer, details that were absent from the spectators’ shirts in the ad.
They also commented that for the real-life football game during which the ad appeared, Mark Pougatch was pitch-side at half time, commenting on the football match with two other presenters and therefore not in the studio where the ad was set.
Finally, they said they considered the effect of the ad from the point of view of the “average consumer”. In the case of the ad, Monzo considered that the target group were viewers of sports programming who were familiar with the format and tone of that type of programming. For the reasons set out above, they considered that the ad would be distinguishable from sports programming to average members of that target group.
Clearcast said that while the opening scene was suggestive of the ITV Sport studio and there could be a second or two where the viewer might mistake the ad for programming, because of the ITV Sport logo and the appearance of the sports pundit Mark Pougatch, Monzo’s logo was prominently placed on-screen at the very outset, establishing it as an ad rather than programming. They said that superimposed text strongly associated with advertising appeared within the first five seconds of the 20-second ad, so any doubts about the nature of the broadcast would be quickly resolved.
They also said that at no point did the presenter appearing in the ad do or say anything that would mislead a viewer into thinking they were watching programme footage. All spoken references, which started from five seconds in, were in relation to saving and the advertiser, Monzo. There were no spoken references to the football match around which the ad appeared and even though the presenter was featured in a football crowd cheering at an imaginary goal being scored and then continuing to celebrate in the ITV Sport studio, the scene was clearly fantastical and over the top in nature and not representative of usual ITV Sport programming content.
ITV said the Monzo logo was immediately present on screen, therefore making the viewer instantly aware of the Monzo branding. That was then followed by legal text inviting consumers in a call to action to apply for a Monzo account. The ad was further recognisably distinct from the editorial format of sports programming, in particular the loud rendition of the advertiser’s brand name, and the stylistic contrasts and differences to the established sports programming editorial structure. The ad was therefore recognisable as advertising for those reasons.
Assessment
Not upheld
The BCAP Code stated that broadcast ads must be obviously distinguishable from editorial content, especially if they used a situation, performance or style reminiscent of editorial content, to prevent the audience being confused between the two, and the audience should quickly recognise the message as an advertisement. In addition, the use of a title, logo, set or music associated with a programme needed special care, and television ads must not refer to themselves in a way that might lead viewers to believe they were watching a programme.
The ad was played during the ad break around a Liverpool and Portsmouth football match, and we assessed it in that context.
The ad, which was preceded by a sponsorship credit for a different brand, and seven other ads, featured the advertiser’s logo “monzo” on screen at the outset of the ad, alongside the ITV Sport logo. Further to that, superimposed text appeared within seconds of the start of the ad, outlining the terms and conditions for the Monzo product being advertised. We considered the logo and superimposed text were likely to be understood by viewers as being associated with advertising content. We noted the opening shot was of the presenter Mark Pougatch, in the ITV Sport studio and was reminiscent of the beginning of a football programme. However, he had been pitch-side commenting on the match immediately before the ad break and was therefore shown in a different setting in the ad. In addition, in the ad he was wearing a suit, whereas in the editorial content he was wearing outdoor clothing. We also considered the initial studio scene, which showed Mark Pougatch with his head in his hands, and the early reference to a football player called “Sims”, who did not play for Liverpool or Plymouth, further distinguished the content from editorial material. As such, we considered the audience was likely to quickly recognise it as an ad.
We considered that impression was further reinforced by the spoken references made by Mark Pougatch, which were all in relation to saving with Monzo rather than to football content. Further, the shot which showed him in the football stands where he was surrounded by football supporters wearing Monzo’s signature colour and holding a microphone in the same colour, which was also different to the green microphone he was holding in the editorial content, was not usual in a live football broadcast. Nor was the shot where he was shown at the end of the ad wearing a football scarf and a foam hand. Finally, the footballers shown in the ad were not wearing the usual Plymouth or Liverpool football kits.
We considered that the average consumer who had been watching the preceding programme, and who was otherwise likely to be familiar with sports programme content, would quickly recognise that they were watching an ad, and that it was obviously distinguishable from editorial content. We therefore concluded that it did not breach the Code.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4.1 (Recognition of advertising), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
