Ad description
A TV ad for Huusk, a brand of Japanese kitchen knives, was seen on the Sky Cinema Animation channel on 17 February 2025. The ad began with several close-up shots of a knife being used to chop food and slice fruit in half. Similar close-up shots of food being cut was seen throughout the ad, which was three minutes long. A man wearing a bandana around his wrist was seen spinning the knife in his hand. In a later scene, the same man was seen holding the knife which he moved through the air in a slashing motion. He was also seen throwing and slicing a pepper while it was in the air. Another scene showed the knife being used outside in a camping environment to cut sticks before it was stuck into a tree branch. Towards the end of the ad, the knife appeared to be pushed forcibly into a tree trunk.
A voiceover, which was heard throughout the ad, stated, “A blend of science, art and tradition. With a design inspired by Japanese knife masters, each Huusk knife embodies more than just a tool. It’s a testament to individuality [...] amazingly sharp and ergonomically designed […] effortlessly slicing food with ease and razor-sharp precision. Huusk cuts through ingredients like a laser […] a knife that’s more than a tool, it’s a legacy for the future.”
The ad was cleared by Clearcast without an age-related scheduling restriction.
Issue
The complainant, who understood the ad had been shown immediately after a ‘U’ rated animated film, challenged whether the knife was irresponsibly depicted at a time when children would have likely been watching.
Response
UAB Convenity t/a Huusk stated that the purpose of the ad was to highlight the features of the knife, with the kitchen and camping scenes demonstrating its strength, sharpness and versatility.
Huusk believed the various scenes which showed the knife being used on food were responsible and that children would have regularly seen food being chopped and sliced at home. They said the knife was not intended to be portrayed in a manner which encouraged violent or irresponsible behaviour and believed none of the scenes featured content which appealed to children.
Although they considered the content of the ad to be responsible, Huusk acknowledged that it should not have been broadcast immediately after a film which was likely to have been viewed by a high number of children. They explained that they held that view because the product was not intended to appeal to children, which they said meant that the ad’s scheduling should have been more carefully considered.
Huusk acknowledged they were responsible for the selection of time slots and TV channels where the ad was broadcast. However, they believed they did not have control over the finalised scheduling of the ad. More specifically, they said the ability to prevent the ad being broadcast immediately following a children’s film was out of their control. They confirmed that no age-related scheduling restriction was issued by Clearcast and said they would ensure all future ads depicted the knife in a safe and responsible manner.
Clearcast said the purpose of the ad was to showcase the product’s quality, its ease of use and the versatility of how it could be used in a variety of settings.
However, they acknowledged some of the scenes could have appealed to children and believed they could have undermined the efforts of parents and schools to educate young people about the dangers of knives.
They said they did not anticipate that Huusk would have wanted to schedule the ad after a film which children were likely to have been watching, but that they would consider adding a scheduling restriction so that it could not be broadcast around programmes principally directed at or likely to appeal to children.
Sky said they relied on Clearcast signalling an ad’s appropriateness through use of their restrictions. They said that because the ad was not given an age-related scheduling restriction, it was scheduled accordingly, and they had no reason to suspect there was an issue with its content. They said that if Clearcast had believed that the product was unsuitable for broadcast around a film that children were likely to have been watching, then they would have expected an ex-kids restriction to have been applied.
Assessment
Upheld
The BCAP Code stated that relevant timing restrictions must be applied to ads that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. The ad was cleared without an age-related scheduling restriction that would have prevented it from being broadcast in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children (an ex-kids restriction). Consequently, it was broadcast immediately after the U rated film ‘Hotel Transylvania Two’, which meant the ad was shown at a time when children would have likely been watching.
We acknowledged that because the purpose of the ad was to promote the Huusk kitchen knife, it was understandable that it would feature the product being used to showcase its performance and versatility. However, since the ad was not targeted away from children, we considered that it should not have featured imagery and dialogue that depicted the knife in a way which risked children emulating its use, in a way that would be unsafe.
We considered that the ad featured a number of scenes of the knife being handled in a manner which went beyond the safe and typical use of a kitchen knife. That included a scene where a man, who had a bandana on his wrist, put his finger through a hole in the knife before he spun it on his hand. The following scene showed fruit being cut almost perfectly in half in one quick and instantaneous slicing motion. In a later scene, the man moved the knife through the air in a slashing motion which we considered was reminiscent of how ninjas were often depicted in children’s media. The man then threw an item of food in the air, and in another sudden, slicing motion, cut the food in half while it was still airborne. We considered that those scenes went beyond the safe and typical use of a kitchen knife, and if emulated by children, could have resulted in them being harmed. Throughout those scenes, the man was presented as performing complex skills which we considered children would have understood as being similar to a ninja and that those scenes would have also appealed to them. We considered, particularly in light of the appeal to children, some children may seek to emulate the scenes in the ad, thereby placing themselves at risk of harm.
Another scene showed the knife being forcibly stuck into tree branches, which went beyond the typical and safe use of a kitchen knife, in a way that could seem exciting to children. We considered that scene could have caused them to emulate such behaviour and result in them being harmed.
We considered that describing a knife as a ‘laser’, while also showing it spinning on someone’s hand and slicing food, presented the product as having exaggerated toy-like qualities which would have resonated with children and, again, could have resulted in harmful emulation.
We considered adults would have understood that those scenes featured the knife being used in an unrealistic setting and that it would have been unsafe for someone who was not professionally trained in handling knives to emulate. In contrast, we considered some children were likely to have been excited by the knife’s depiction in the scenes, which could cause them to emulate the behaviour shown, putting them at risk of harm. We concluded that, to minimise the risk of children seeing it, the ad should have been given an ex-kids timing restriction. We therefore concluded that the scheduling of the ad was irresponsible and breached the Code.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 5.2 (Children), 32.1 and 32.3 (Scheduling).
Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form without an appropriate scheduling restriction to ensure it is not broadcast in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.
