ASA Watch

Two poster ads displayed on bus shelters, for the clothing brand Nobody's Child, seen in November 2015:

• a. One ad featured a female model wearing a black jumpsuit and heeled shoes, sitting on the arm of a sofa with one leg bent in front of her resting on the sofa and her arms in a relaxed position. She was looking at the camera. Text stated nobody'schild.com .

• b. The other ad featured the same model wearing a tartan dress, sitting on a chair facing towards the camera. One leg was slightly raised. Text stated nobody'schild.com .

The ASA received three complaints.

1. The complainants, who believed the poses and facial expressions of the model sexualised someone who they considered appeared to be a child, challenged whether the ads were irresponsible and offensive.

2. One complainant additionally challenged whether the ads were irresponsible and offensive because they believed the images, in conjunction with the brand name Nobody's Child , implied the images were of a vulnerable child.

1. & 2. Nobody's Child Ltd t/a nobody'schild.com said they appreciated that visual imagery was open to personal interpretation, but considered the model in the ads was not sexualised and would not be perceived as being a child or vulnerable. They said the model was 21 years old and they had chosen not to style her in heavy makeup or bright lipstick in order to avoid projecting any kind of vulgarity.

They said the name Nobody's Child was intended to reflect the feeling their target audience experienced, that they were no longer children and were now their own person. They said the name was, therefore, recognition that their target audience had reached an age where they could make their own decisions and be their own people, rather than conveying vulnerability.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA noted that while the model was fully clothed in both ads, in ad (a) her breast was partially exposed. She leaned casually against a wall with one leg resting up on a sofa armrest, and looked directly into the camera with her mouth partially open. In ad (b) she sat in an over-sized chair with one leg slightly raised and her hands loosely clasped together, looking directly toward the camera. We considered that her poses and gaze in both ads were mildly sexually suggestive, and that her pose in ad (b) in particular also suggested vulnerability.

We understood the model featured in the ads was 21 years of age but considered she appeared younger, and that when shown in conjunction with the prominent brand name nobody'schild.com , would be regarded as appearing to be a child. In that context, we considered that the model's poses implied vulnerability and sexual precocity. We therefore concluded the ads portrayed a model who appeared to be a child in a way that was sexually suggestive and could be perceived as being vulnerable. We concluded that the ads were irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Nobody's Child Ltd t/a nobody'schild.com to ensure the images used in their ads, particularly when presented in conjunction with their brand name, did not sexualise those who appeared to be a child and depict them as being vulnerable.

a. A pre-roll video ad for the certificate 15 film Paranormal Activity - The Ghost Dimension , seen on 21 October 2015, on the Mail Online website www.dailymail.co.uk, before a clip relating to the boy band One Direction.

b. The same ad was seen on a playlist of pre-selected Disney and music lyric videos accessed via the Vevo app on an Apple TV.

The complainant, who believed the ads appeared before content likely to appeal to children, challenged whether the ads were responsibly targeted. parental controls that could have prevented the ad from being shown were available on the Apple TV device.

ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld

We understood that the ad was for a certificate 15 film. We noted that the ad contained screams of a young girl who appeared to be possessed, with visuals that suggested supernatural activity and atmospheric music. We considered that the ad was serious in tone and that, while it would not cause fear or distress to older people (including the target demographic of 15- to 24-year-olds), it was unsuitable for display before content under 15s were likely to be watching.

We understood that Paramount Pictures utilised a targeting strategy where the ad was served on music content that had been shown to be popular with 15 to 24-year-olds. Examples of artists used to target consumers included One Direction, Beyonce and Selena Gomez. We noted that the ad was further targeted by only being served to those with an online profile that indicated they were over the age of 15.

We understood that ad (a) appeared before a clip about the popular boyband One Direction. Although we acknowledged that the group were popular with people of various ages, including under 15s, we considered that the Mail Online contained current affairs content that was not likely to appeal to children, and that ad (a) had therefore not been irresponsibly targeted before that clip on the site.

We understood ad (b) was served before videos in a playlist that the complainant had created within her own Apple account. We understood that her playlist was likely to have been targeted because it featured videos by the selected artists and because she was signed into her Apple TV account which indicated she was over 15. We noted that the ad had appeared before videos from artists who would be popular with people of various ages, including under 15s, but that they appealed primarily to the target demographic of 15- to 24-year-olds. As such, we did not consider that the ad was placed within content specifically aimed at children or likely to appeal to them particularly.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ads had not been irresponsibly targeted.

The advert censors at ASA have published 2015's Top 10 most complained about ads

ASA notes that while these ads drew complaints about harm and offence, 75% of its caseload is made up of complaints about misleading ads. Guy Parker, ASA Chief Executive, said

Our Top 10 for 2015 will no doubt get people talking about whether the ads are or aren't offensive, but there are important issues at stake here. Advertisers must take care not to cause serious or widespread offence, but we don't play a number's game. And while matters of offence can grab the headlines, the bulk of our work is the less glamorous task of tackling misleading advertising. That's why we're taking a more proactive approach to address the issues which affect consumers the most before complaints need to be made.

2015's most complained about ads are: 

1. Moneysupermarket.com Ltd

1,513 complaints -- Not upheld

A TV and internet ad featured a man walking down a street and dancing whilst wearing denim shorts and high heeled shoes. We received complaints that the ad was offensive. Many complainants thought this was due to the man's clothing and dance moves and because they believed the content was overtly sexual. While acknowledging that some viewers might have found the ad distasteful, we did not judge the ad to be offensive and in breach of the Code.

 2. Booking.com BV

683 complaints -- Not upheld

This TV and cinema ad prompted complaints that the ad was offensive and encouraged bad language amongst children by using the word "booking" in place of a swear word. We did not uphold the complaints, judging that it was a light hearted play on words that couldn't be mistaken for an actual swear word. We also ruled that the ad was unlikely to encourage swearing amongst children; any children that did pick up on the joke were unlikely to have learned bad language through the ad itself.

 3. Paypal (UK) Ltd

464 complaints -- Not upheld

Two children in Paypal's Christmas ad which appeared on TV and Video-on-Demand (VOD) were worried that their parents hadn't been shopping for Christmas Presents. Complaints expressed concern that the ad revealed the truth about Father Christmas. We did not uphold the complaints. Independently, Paypal changed the scheduling of its commercial.

 4. Booking.com BV

407 complaints -- Not upheld

Complainants found this TV ad featuring a man sitting on a boat before jumping off and swimming ashore, offensive due to its use of the word "booking". Consistent with the previous ruling, we judged that the content of the ad was a light hearted play on words that couldn't be mistaken for an actual swear word and that the ad did not break the advertising rules.

 5. Protein World Ltd

380 complaints - Not upheld

Before investigating complaints that a poster featuring a woman in a bikini was offensive, the ASA told Protein World that, due its ASA's concerns about a range of health and weight loss claims, the ad could not appear again in its current form. The ASA concluded, however, that that ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

6. British Heart Foundation

219 complaints -- Not upheld

We received complaints about a British Heart Foundation TV, VOD and cinema ad which showed a boy sitting in a classroom talking to his dad who had died from a heart attack. Complainants considered the ad to be distressing for adults and children to see. We noted that the ad had been scheduled to not appear around children's programming. We also recognised that some people might find the ad upsetting but judged it was unlikely to cause widespread distress.

 7. Booking.com BV

201 complaints -- Not upheld

Booking.com's TV and VOD ad showed a story of a couple who met at a hotel. Complainants thought the word "booking" in the ad had been substituted in place of a swear word and thought it was offensive. Consistent with our previous decisions, we judged that the content of the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

 8. Department of Health

181 complaints -- Not upheld

A TV and VOD ad, which was part of an anti-smoking campaign from Public Health England, showed a man rolling a cigarette, which had blood and flesh inside it. A poster ad also showed a cigarette which contained flesh. We received complaints that the ads were graphic and gruesome and were therefore offensive and irresponsible. We acknowledged that some people might find the ads unsettling but noted that they also contained an important health message. We concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

9. Nicocigs Ltd

145 complaints -- Not upheld

We received complaints about a TV ad for an electronic cigarette. Many objected that the advertising of e-cigarettes was allowed and many thought the ad was appealing to children. Strict advertising rules for e-cigarettes were introduced in 2014 following a public consultation. We also noted that the ad wasn't scheduled around programming that was likely to appeal to children and the ad's style was not appealing to them. On that basis we judged that the ad did not break the advertising rules.

 10. Omega Pharma Ltd

136 complaints -- Upheld (this figure relates to 2015 complaints only, more complaints were received in 2016)

A TV, YouTube and VOD ad for XLS Medical, a slimming aid, featured two women exchanging text messages before heading on holiday. After seeing a photo of her friend who had lost weight, the other woman in the ad was unhappy about not being able to fit into her holiday wardrobe. We banned the ad because it presented an irresponsible approach to body image and confidence.

The UK advert censor has appointed the pro-censorship campaigner Reg Bailey, who led the government's review into the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood, to the council that decides whether to ban advertisements.

Bailey, the former chief executive of the Mothers' Union, will join the Advertising Standards Authority's council of 13 members. Bailey crowed:

Having direct and indirect experience of the ASA throughout my career, both as a marketer and a campaigner for children's rights, I've admired its commitment to and effectiveness in tackling misleading, harmful or irresponsible advertising.

ASA chairman, Chris Smith spouted:

One of our priorities is to protect children from inappropriate content, ensuring that the ads they see and hear are responsible. Reg's background in marketing allied with his expertise on children's wellbeing and issues that impact on young people will further enhance Council's discussions in this area.

Two posters for a noodle bar seen on a train on 19 October and at a train station on 13 November featured text that stated, GET YOUR NOODLE ON! FIRST TUESDAY OF EVERY MONTH FOUR DELICIOUS NOODLE BASED DISHES . The posters also showed two slogans with text that stated PHAT PHUC ...THE HANOI BIKE SHOP .

The ASA received complaints from two members of the public:

1. one complainant objected that the ad was offensive because it featured a slogan, which when spoken sounded like a swearword; and

2. one complainant objected that the ad was inappropriate for public display where children could see it because it featured a slogan that sounded like a swearword when spoken.

Hanoi Bike Shop stated that they were a Vietnamese canteen and that Phat Phuc was the name of an event that had been running since March 2015 and was also used for naming some of their noodle dishes. They clarified that Phat Phuc in Vietnamese was pronounced Fet Fook and meant Happy Buddha.

ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA understood that the word happy in Vietnamese was correctly spelt as Phuc and although it was pronounced as Fook, we acknowledged that it sounded similar to the expletive fuck.

However, we noted that the Hanoi Bike Shop sold Far Eastern cuisine, which both posters had made sufficiently clear. In the context of the posters, we considered that viewers who might have been offended by bad language were likely to recognise that Phuc was from a reference to Southeast Asian language, was different from the expletive and would not necessarily be pronounced in the same way. We therefore, concluded that the posters were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

2. Not upheld

As mentioned above, we acknowledged that while the expletive had not been used, the two words, depending on the pronunciation, might sound similar. However, we considered that younger children who were unlikely to comprehend that Phuc was a Vietnamese word were also unlikely to read or pronounce it as the expletive. While some older children might have pronounced it as the expletive, given the context of an ad for a Vietnamese restaurant and that the word was taken from this language we did not consider that this made it unsuitable for them to see. We therefore concluded that the posters were not irresponsibly placed where children could see them.

A Poster for Crimestoppers, seen on the station platform and on a phone box in Rugby, on 29 October and 16 November 2015 respectively, stated BREAK YOUR SILENCE Don't let drugs and violence rip the heart out of your community and included an image of bloodied hands holding a heart.

Two complainants challenged whether the ad was likely to cause distress, particularly to children, and was therefore inappropriate for outdoor display in an untargeted medium.

Crimestoppers acknowledged that the artwork could be perceived as controversial and were sorry that it had caused distress. They strove to walk the line between effective and potentially difficult imagery in the artwork they used, and said the last thing they wanted to do was alienate members of the public.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA noted that the image in the ad featured a human heart grasped in bloodied hands, with drips of blood running down the fingers. The image was also accompanied with the claim Don't let drugs and violence rip the heart out of your community which enhanced the impression that the heart had been ripped out of an individual's chest. We considered that some individuals, particularly children, who would not necessarily understand the rationale behind the image, might find the bloody image upsetting because of its graphic nature. While we acknowledged the positive intention behind the campaign and understood that the image had been used to emphasise the serious implications of violent crime, we considered that the image was not directly relevant to crime or the overriding message of the campaign. For those reasons, we considered that the ad was likely to cause unjustifiable distress when displayed in an untargeted medium and concluded that it breached the Code.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Crimestoppers Trust to ensure their marketing did not cause undue distress in future.