Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated. One issue was Upheld in relation to ad (d), and the second issue was Upheld.
Ad description
Four paid-for online display ads for Huusk, a brand of Japanese kitchen knives:
a. The first ad, seen on 17 June 2021 on the Apple News app, included an image of a knife with a curved blade and wooden handle against a blurred background of a Japanese temple and other buildings, and stated “Huusk £29 Japanese Kitchen Knife Cuts Through Anything LEARN MORE Ad”.
b. The second ad, seen on 24 June 2021 on the Apple News app, included an image of the knife against a background of lava, and stated “Huusk Japanese Kitchen Knife is Taking the UK by… LEARN MORE Ad”.
c. The third ad, seen on 3 July 2021 on MSN News, included an image of the knife against a background of brown fabric, and stated “Sharpest Japanese Kitchen Knife is Taking UK By Storm Ad Huusk”.
d. The fourth ad, seen on 8 February 2022 on a news app, included an image of a persons’ hand holding the knife with a finger through a hole in the blade, and stated “Perfectly Balanced Blades”.
Issue
Four complainants, who believed the ads encouraged violence, challenged whether:
1. the ads were harmful and irresponsible; and
2. had been irresponsibly targeted.
Response
1. UAB Ekomlita t/a Huusk said that they did not believe the ads encouraged violence. They said the phrase “kitchen knife” made clear that the advertised product was intended to be used in food preparation.
They said the claims made in the ads suggested that the knife could be used for all food cutting purposes in the kitchen, reflected the product’s increased popularity, and reflected consumer’s feedback. In their opinion, additional references to food or anything culinary seemed old-fashioned, and so they chose not to include that style of imagery in their ads. The imagery used in the ads was to reflect the Japanese origins of the knife and the quality of the product. None of the claims or imagery referenced violence.
2. Huusk said they selected news websites and apps because they were mostly read by adults. They used advertising analysis to determine the specific media sources and websites to place their ads and set the target audience, which was people who enjoyed spending time preparing food in the kitchen and people who liked to use quality kitchen tools. The ads served on Apple News and MSN News (ads (a) – (c)) used the Google Ads “Smart Campaigns” advertising tool. They believed it was not possible to select age or interest-based categories using that tool. However, Google assured them that the target audience would not be users aged younger than 18 years. They said ad (d) was created by an affiliate advertiser.
They said the ads did not include a disclaimer stating that the knives were not available to those under 18 because customers in the UK must confirm that they were 18 or older when placing an order. The website disclaimer stated that customers must be aware of their place of residence’s regulations regarding knives.
1. & 2. Apple News said they had a policy that prohibited advertising content that directly or indirectly facilitated or promoted the sale of weapons. They received one complaint about ad (b) and another complaint about Huusk advertising in general. The ads did not violate their policy because, in their opinion, it was clear that they advertised a kitchen knife and not a weapon. However, they said they had stopped running ads (a) and (b).
MSN News said they had stopped running ad (c).
Google said Google Ads was a self-administered system and it was therefore the responsibility of the advertiser to ensure their ads abided by applicable laws and regulations. Google Ads policy did not permit the advertising of certain dangerous products, such as knives that were designed or promoted as products that could be used to injure. However, an ad for a kitchen knife would not normally engage with that policy and could therefore be served using Google Ads. They said the Google Ads “Smart Campaigns” offered automated targeting, but that advertisers could still choose to apply targeting exclusions.
Assessment
1. Upheld in relation to ad (d) only
The CAP Code required marketers to avoid causing serious or widespread offence and to ensure advertising was prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. The complainants were particularly concerned that, at a time of rising knife crime, the ads could encourage violence, particularly amongst young people.
We considered that, because the knife was more decorative and of a different shape to standard kitchen knives with which consumers would be familiar, it would have been reminiscent to some people of the types of knives they would have associated with weapons. However, we considered consumers would understand from the claim “Japanese Kitchen Knife” in ads (a) – (c) that the knife in the ads was a kitchen knife, and its intended purpose was to be used in the preparation of food. None of those ads contained anything that would be specifically associated with violence. Because those ads made clear that the advertised product was a kitchen knife and did not include any claims or imagery associating it with violence, we concluded that they were not likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence, or that they were irresponsible, on that point.
Although we acknowledged that they maintained ad (d) had been produced by an affiliate, we nonetheless considered that, as the beneficiaries of the marketing material, they were responsible for the ad. Ad (d) did not contain any reference to kitchen knives or contain any associated imagery such as food preparation or a kitchen setting. We considered that the decorative nature and shape of the knife, the image showing a person’s hand holding the knife with a finger through the hole in the blade and the reference to “Perfectly Balanced Blades” meant that at least some of those who saw the ad would interpret it as an ad for a potential weapon. We therefore concluded that ad (d) was irresponsible, likely to cause serious offence to some people and condone and encourage violence.
On this point ad (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
1.3
1.3
Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
(Responsible advertising),
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of: age; disability; gender; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
and
4.4
4.4
Marketing communications must contain nothing that is likely to condone or encourage violence or anti-social behaviour.
(Harm and offence).
We also investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) 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.
(Responsible advertising),
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of: age; disability; gender; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
and
4.4
4.4
Marketing communications must contain nothing that is likely to condone or encourage violence or anti-social behaviour.
(Harm and offence), but did not find them in breach.
2. Upheld
We understood that it was illegal to sell knives to those under the age of 18 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to those under the age of 16 in Scotland. We understood that the ads had been targeted to the UK population rather than to a specific nation. We therefore considered that marketers should be able to demonstrate that they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that ads for knives were directed at an audience aged 18 and over so as to minimise under-18s’ exposure to them.
We considered that ads for age-restricted products on online platforms should not be targeted solely based on age data, because of younger users misreporting their age or different people sharing the same device. Advertisers should support that method of targeting by using interest-based factors to help remove those aged under-18 from the target audience of ads for such products.
With regard to ads (a) – (c), seen on Apple News and MSN News, we acknowledged that neither the news app nor website were of particular appeal to children, and that they were more likely to be viewed by adults. We nonetheless considered that because it was likely that some children were in the audiences of those sites UAB Ekomlita should have used age- and interest- based targeting tools to ensure that the ads were targeted to adults and away from under-18s. We therefore expected them to hold evidence to demonstrate that they had targeted the ads appropriately. They said the Google Ads “Smart Campaigns” did not allow them to use age- or interest-based factors to target their ads away from under-18s. We noted that this was not consistent with the information provided by Google, who said that advertisers could still choose to apply such exclusions. We therefore understood that UAB Ekomlita could have applied both age- and interest-based targeting tools, but had not done so.
Because the ads were for an age-restricted product and UAB Ekomlita had not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that they were not served to under-18s, we concluded that the ads were irresponsible and breached the Code.
On this point, ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) breached 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).
Action
Ad (d) must not appear again in the form complained about. We told UAB Ekomlita t/a Huusk to ensure that ads for their knives did not imply they could be used as potential weapons, including any marketing created by affiliate advertisers
Ads (a), (b) and (c) must not be used again without further, specific targeting to minimise the likelihood of under-18s being exposed to them. We told Huusk to ensure that they took all reasonable steps to ensure that their ads were appropriately targeted in future.
