Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated and both were Not upheld.
Ad description
TV and video-on-demand (VOD) ads for Red Bull:
a. The TV ad was for Red Bull Energy Drink and featured an animated group of penguins. A smaller penguin stated, "Dad, I'm a genius. We don't have to freeze anymore, I can make us penguins fly." The father penguin replied, "That's going to be tricky without wings." The younger penguin responded, "Exactly, that's why I've got Red Bull it gives you wings. All we have to do is drink it." The younger penguin opened the can but was unable to drink because the liquid was frozen. The father penguin stated, "It's 40 degrees below, or did you think we were standing here for fun?" A can of Red Bull Energy Drink was then pictured, with on-screen text stating "Red Bull gives you wiiings".
b. The VOD ad was for Red Bull Sugar Free and was the same as ad (a), except that the product featured was Red Bull Sugar Free.
Issue
1. Four complainants, who understood that cans of Red Bull Energy Drink were labelled "Not recommended for children …", objected that ad (a) was irresponsible because they believed it would appeal to children.
2. One complainant, who understood that cans of Red Bull Sugar Free were labelled "Not recommended for children …", objected that ad (b) was irresponsible because they believed it would appeal to children.
Response
Red Bull Company Ltd (Red Bull) said their ads had used a consistent cartoon style for the last 15 years, in which they featured the incredible or impossible, coupled with humour, to tell an entertaining story. They said although their ads were cartoons, they were not childish. They believed the storylines were intelligent, and they contained grown-up themes and quick-witted, fast-moving dialogue, and were intended to be light-hearted.
Red Bull said the caffeine level in their products meant they did not deem it appropriate to market them to children, and they complied with a voluntary industry code which meant their cans were labelled as "Not recommended for children, pregnant women and persons sensitive to caffeine". They did not agree the ads were likely to appeal to children. They said, although the ads featured cartoon penguins, the dialogue and subject matter made it clear that the ads were not aimed at children. They believed the humour was adult in nature and the tone was ironic. They also believed the language used in the ads was adult, and highlighted the line "it's forty degrees below" used to describe the temperature as being something children would not understand. They also said the tone was sarcastic in places which they did not believe would appeal to children. Red Bull also said the younger penguin was not depicted as a child penguin, as he has the voice and language of a cheeky and confident young man. They said they did not feature him to capture the attention of children.
1. Clearcast endorsed Red Bull's response in relation to ad (a). They said, because this ad was for Red Bull Energy Drink, which contained sugar, it was subject to scheduling restrictions as an HFSS (high fat, salt or sugar) product, which meant that it could not be shown during or adjacent to children's programmes. They said the fact Red Bull was not recommended for children, due to its high caffeine content, was not a reason in itself for scheduling it away from children's programmes. They said the younger penguin in the ad was clearly not a child penguin, and sounded in their late teens. They also said that a 250 ml can of Red Bull contained the same amount of caffeine as an average cup of coffee, and did not believe a similar ad for coffee would have attracted complaints.
2. Red Bull said they directed Virgin Media Ltd (Virgin Media) to place ad (b) alongside adult programmes, and provided a copy of their media plan. They said their target audience, on which Virgin Media were briefed, was designed not to promote to anyone under the age of 16 years .
Virgin Media Ltd said that because the ad was for Red Bull Sugar Free, the product was not high in fat, salt or sugar, and so was an unrestricted product. They were not aware of any direct complaints from viewers.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that, because it was for an HFSS product, ad (a) had not been scheduled in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 16. We noted the complainants believed the style of the ads, and the use of what they believed to be a 'child' and father penguin, meant the ads would appeal to children, despite promoting a product they believed was not recommended for children. We also noted Red Bull believed the ads were adult in tone, and clearly not intended to appeal to children. We considered that the voice of the younger penguin sounded like an older teen or young man and that the language used and the sarcastic nature of the dialogue emphasised the adult tone of the ad. We acknowledged that the ad was a cartoon, but considered that it did not target children or imply that the drink was suitable for children. We concluded that because the ad was not targeted at, or likely to have particular appeal to, children it was not irresponsible and was unlikely to encourage an unhealthy lifestyle in children.
On this point 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. (Responsibility) and 13.2 13.2 Advertisements must avoid anything likely to condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle, especially in children. (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted that Red Bull directed Virgin Media to place ad (b) alongside adult programmes, and that they did not aim to promote to anyone under the age of 16. We noted the complainants believed the style of the ads, and the use of what they believed to be a 'child' and father penguin, meant the ads would appeal to children, despite promoting a product they understood was not recommended for children. We also noted Red Bull believed the ads were adult in tone, and clearly not intended to appeal to children. We considered that the voice of the younger penguin sounded like an older teen or young man and that the language used and the sarcastic nature of the dialogue emphasised the adult tone of the ad. We acknowledged that the ad was a cartoon, but considered that it did not target children or imply that the drink was suitable for children. We concluded that because the ad was not targeted at, or likely to have particular appeal to, children it was not irresponsible.
On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Responsibility) and 15.11 15.11 Marketing communications must not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children. (Diet and lifestyle) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
