ASA Watch

No doubt moralist campaigners will now be calling for an 11pm watershed for all TV deemed to be made for an adult audience.

Perhaps something missing from the ASA analysis is that considering a range of ages from 10 must surely distort the analysis. Surely 10 year olds go to bed an awful lot earlier than 15 year olds so considering the average is likely underestimate the amount of kids staying up at the higher end of the range. I would suspect that it may be 11pm to 12pm before the teenagers turn off.

The ASA challenged the scheduling of 576 alcohol ads that were broadcast after 9 pm on the seven Box TV music channels in the period February, March, April 2013. In total, the ASA found that the scheduling of 268 ads breached the BCAP Code and the scheduling of 308 ads did not.

Rule 32.2.1 of The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (the BCAP Code) states that alcohol ads should not be shown in or around programmes commissioned for, principally targeted at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 18.

Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) guidance recommends the use of audience indexing, a statistical tool, to determine the representation of children in relation to the audience as a whole. BCAP guidance states that an alcohol restriction should be applied in programmes where the 10- to 15-year-old audience, indexed against the total audience of all individuals over four years old, produces an index of 120 or more. An index of 120 would mean that 10- to 15-year-olds are 20% over-represented in the programme audience compared to the audience as a whole. Presumably an index of 100 would mean that the program is viewed by an average cross section of all ages.

There were 576 alcohol ads broadcast in programmes on the following channels licensed to Box Television Ltd in the period February, March and April 2013:

1. 4Music (126 ads); described on the 4Music website as a channel that brings you closer to the hottest artists right now .
2. Heat (22 ads); described on the Heat website as a channel that brings you the best in entertainment and celebrity news .
3. Kerrang (138 ads); described on the Kerrang website as the music channel for the world's biggest selling rock magazine .
4. Kiss TV (93 ads); described on the Kiss TV website as the beat of the UK on TV .
5. Magic TV (43 ads); described on the Magic TV website as offering feel good favourites twenty four hours a day .
6. Smash Hits (69 ads); described on the Smash Hits website as hits now and always .
7. The Box (85 ads); described on The Box website as providing fresh music first .

There were 219 ads broadcast between 9 pm and 9.59 pm; 143 ads between 10 pm and 10.59 pm; 102 between 11 pm and 11.59 pm and 102 ads broadcast after 12 am.

The ASA Compliance team challenged whether it was appropriate to schedule alcohol ads in the programmes on these channels because the data indicated that many were likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 18.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld in parts

1. 4Music

The ASA acknowledged that the audience figures for 4Music were low and agreed that a time slot based restriction was a reasonable scheduling approach when attempting to comply with the spirit and intention of the Code.

In accordance with the advice of the statistical expert as to the potential for the audience indexing score to be useful to some degree, we noted that the average index score in the 9 pm to 9.59 pm time slot on 4Music varied from 134 to 136. After 10 pm the average index dropped to 95 to 97 and remained below the 120 cut-off point for the rest of the night in every weekly period.

We considered that a 10 pm restriction would have been more appropriate based on the spirit and intention of the rule, based in turn on the hard audience information available and knowledge of the audience profiles.

2. The Box, Smash Hits and Heat

• The Box: average index score 9 pm to 9.59 pm: 121 to 141
• The Heat: average index score 9 pm to 9.59 pm: 140 to 158
• Smash Hits average index score 9 pm to 9.59 pm: 143 to 154
• All fell to under 120 after 10pm (but this still means a lot of kids are watching)

We considered that a 10 pm restriction for alcohol ads on The Box, Smash Hits and Heat would have been more appropriate.

3. Kerrang

• Average index score 9 pm to 9.59 pm: 219 to 241
• Average index score 10 pm to 10.59 pm: 172 to 196
• The average index score continued to exceed 120 until 00.59 am

We therefore considered that an 11 pm restriction would have been more appropriate.

4. Kiss

• Average index score 9 pm to 9.59 pm: 132 to 169
• Average index score 10 pm to 10.59 pm: 133 to 148 some week, under 120 others
• Fell to under 120 after 11pm

We therefore considered that an 11 pm restriction would have been more appropriate.

5. Magic TV Complaints not upheld

• The average index score for the preceding 52 weeks did not exceed 120 in any time slot.

We therefore concluded that the third party had demonstrated that the decision to allow alcohol ads from 9 pm on Magic TV was a reasonable scheduling decision.

A TV ad, for computer game Call of Duty: Ghosts , to the background soundtrack of Frank Sinatra singing I'm Gonna Live until I Die , featured four men engaged in a series of gunfights and explosions with an anonymous enemy, vehicles and aircraft in an abandoned and derelict Las Vegas, outer space and a snowy tundra. At the end of the ad, on-screen text stated There's a soldier in all of us .

The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction, which meant it should not be shown in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.

1. Thirteen viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible, because it trivialised warfare and condoned and encouraged violence and gun use.

2. Six viewers challenged whether the ad was inappropriately scheduled on, or around Remembrance Day.

3. Seven viewers challenged whether the ad was inappropriately scheduled at times when children might have been watching.

Clearcast explained that the game had a 16 age certificate, which automatically required the ad to be given an ex-kids restriction. Regardless of the age rating for the game, they believed an ex-kids restriction was also appropriate, because of the fantastical violence and gunfight, but they did not believe that it required a more stringent rating.

ASA Assessment Complaints not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that it was clear that the main characters were participants in the game rather than actual soldiers in a battle scenario. The setting was fantastical and highly exaggerated, which combined with the light hearted visual asides, such as admiring the scenery, and the lack of urgency or fear, had lessened the overall impact of the gunfight, which did not include any scenes of killing. We considered that, because the scenes were clearly part of a computer game and far-fetched, they were unlikely to encourage or condone violence or gun use.

We also considered that the scenes of the men smiling and enjoying the action, together with the soundtrack of I'm Gonna Live until I Die' and the on-screen text There's a soldier in all of us would be understood by viewers in the context of the ad to refer to involvement and interaction with the computer game rather than trivialising the seriousness of warfare. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

2. Not upheld

Channel 4 scheduled the ad away from programmes that were specifically dedicated to war and warfare and we received no specific complaints that the ad was broadcast around coverage of the Cenotaph ceremony or the following day's three minutes silence. Although we understood that some viewers found the timing over the Remembrance Day weekend to be distasteful, we considered that the ad would be understood to be about game-play and not war itself and the broadcast of the ad over that weekend was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to viewers.

3. Not upheld

We understood that, because the game had a 16 age certificate, Clearcast applied a restriction to prevent it from being broadcast in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children. We considered the restriction was appropriate in keeping the ad away from young children, but there was nothing within the ad that made it unsuitable for broadcast at other times of the day. We acknowledged that some viewers found the ad unsuitable for broadcast when older children might be watching at other times of the day, but concluded that the ex-kids restriction was nonetheless sufficient for the ad.

A press ad for the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), published 25 October in The Times, was headlined READY TO GO: A TOUGH NEW REGULATOR FOR THE PRESS . Text stated Today sees the launch of a tough new regulator for the press - the toughest in the Western world. The new Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) will be up and running early next year, and will deliver all the key elements Lord Justice Leveson called for in his report. It will guarantee the British public enjoy the standard of journalism they deserve. And it will ensure Britain remains not just the birthplace, but the home of free speech. This is how it works: @ . The ad listed seven subheadings: TOUGH SANCTIONS ... UPFRONT CORRECTIONS ... INVESTIGATIVE POWERS ... GENUINE INDEPENDENCE ... NO COST TO THE PUBLIC ... THE SUPPORT OF THE NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE INDUSTRY ... FREE SPEECH GUARANTEED , with additional information provided under each one.

Text under the subheading GENUINE INDEPENDENCE stated The Board of IPSO will have a majority of independent members and an independent chair, chosen in a transparent and open process .

Text under the subheading FREE SPEECH GUARANTEED stated Politicians are trying to force the press to sign up to a royal charter written by politicians, imposed by politicians and controlled by politicians. IPSO is entirely independent of all political parties . Issue

The Media Standards Trust (MST) and two members of the public objected to the ad. They challenged whether:

1. the claim The new Independent Press Standards organisation ... will deliver all the key elements Lord Justice Leveson called for in his report was misleading and could be substantiated, because they maintained there are a number of elements in the report which IPSO would not deliver;
2. the claim GENUINE INDEPENDENCE was misleading and could be substantiated, because MST maintained IPSO was not entirely independent of all political parties, and MST and the two members of the public maintained it was not independent of the newspaper industry;
3. the claim Politicians are trying to force the press to sign up to a royal charter was misleading, because the Royal Charter system was voluntary; and
4. the claim Politicians are trying to force the press to sign up to a royal charter ... controlled by politicians was misleading, because politicians were explicitly excluded from the recognition body that was set up by the Royal Charter.

ASA Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the complainants believed there were elements in the Leveson report which IPSO would not deliver, and that the advertisers believed that those specific elements were met.

We considered the claim in the ad, which stated that IPSO would deliver all the key elements Lord Justice Leveson called for in his report . The ad set out seven sub-headings which provided further information about the proposed IPSO model for regulating the press. However, Lord Justice Leveson had not determined specific key elements in his report.

We considered that the ad's readers, whilst familiar with the general issues relating to press regulation, would be unlikely to have detailed knowledge of the content of the Leveson report. We thought it likely they would assume from the ad, wrongly, that the sub-headings formally set out those issues which had been expressly defined as key elements in the Leveson report, and which should be implemented by a proposed press regulator. We did not consider whether the specific elements raised by the complainants were or were not met, but considered that the ad implied more certainty around which might be the key elements than was the case and therefore concluded that it was misleading on that basis.

2-4 Not upheld

A ban on a safe cycling television advert which showed a rider without a helmet has been overturned.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld five complaints in January that the ad, part of a campaign by Cycling Scotland, was irresponsible and harmful because it showed a cyclist without a helmet or any other safety attire riding down the middle of the road.

The advert censor said the cyclist in the final scene was not wearing a helmet or any other safety attire and appeared to be more than half a metre from the parking lane, ruling that the ad undermined the recommendations set out in the Highway Code and concluding that it was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety .

Cycling Scotland told the ASA that wearing a cycling helmet was not a legal requirement in Scotland but a personal choice for the individual - a fact it considered was reflected in the ad with footage of various cyclists with and without helmets.

But the ASA has now said there was a potential flaw in its ruling, and it lifted the ban while an independent review was carried out. ASA has unbanned the advert in its latest adjudications. ASA wrote:

A TV ad for a campaign promoting safer cycling on the road, stated in the voice-over Not a lot of people know this but you should treat a cyclist the way you treat a horse ... slow down, treat them with care and give them their space on the road. The final shot showed a young woman cycling down the road whilst the on-screen text stated SEE CYCLIST THINK HORSE .

Five complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful, because it showed a cyclist without a helmet or any other safety attire, who was cycling down the middle of the road rather than one metre from the curb.

Cycling Scotland pointed out that wearing a cycling helmet was not a legal requirement in Scotland, but a personal choice for the individual. This they considered was illustrated in the ad, by showing various cyclists with and without helmets.

Cycling Scotland further commented that cycling had a high benefit:disbenefit ratio, even when factoring in injuries and referred to the national cycling charity (CTC) report. Cycling Scotland also referred to their helmet policy, which discussed the possible undesired outcomes of wearing helmets, including limiting uptake of cycling (leading to less physical activity) and influencing a driver's behaviour to be less careful when interacting on the road.

Regarding the cyclist's clothing, Cycling Scotland commented that this was to reflect the accessibility of cycling and to help promote it as a viable way to make everyday journeys.

With regards to the cyclist's positioning, Cycling Scotland stated that given the width of the road featured in the advert, the cyclist was safer riding out past the parking area where they could be clearly visible to other road users. Furthermore, they informed the ASA that the shoot for the advert was supervised by one of their most experienced cycling instructors.

Cycling Scotland referred the ASA to the National Standard for cycling training's recognised reference source, Cyclecraft , which identified two clear positions: the first being the primary position, which is the default position for urban roads, placing the cyclist in the centre of the active traffic lane; and the secondary position, placing the cyclist on the left of the primary position, but not less than half a metre from the kerb. In this case, the advertiser commented that the cyclist was not less than half a metre from the parking lane.

ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld

THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 29 JANUARY. THE VERDICT HAS CHANGED, MAKING THE COMPLAINT NOT UPHELD.

We noted that the final shot of the ad showed a young woman cycling down the road without wearing a helmet, and appeared to be located in the centre of the lane.

We acknowledged Cycling Scotland's explanation regarding why the cyclist featured in the final scene of the ad was placed in the primary position and that this was an appropriate position to depict the cyclist in given the specific road conditions. We identified that the cyclist was shown in broad daylight and positioned on the centre of a fairly large lane, without any traffic and was clearly visible. Furthermore, we noted that there was a large gap between her and the car which overtook her. For those reasons, we considered that the cyclist had been placed in a suitable cycling position.

We understood that the Highway Code recommends that helmets should be worn which conform to current regulations, fit correctly and are securely fastened. However, we acknowledged that it was not a UK legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets, but instead was a decision they could make at their own discretion. We noted Cycling Scotland's and Clearcast's point that this was reflected in the ad by showing various cyclists with and without helmets.

We acknowledged Cycling Scotland's reference to the National Cycling Charity (CTC) report, which discussed the possible harmful outcomes of wearing cycling helmets, including evidence that some drivers perceive cyclists wearing helmets to be less vulnerable road users and that this can influence driver behaviours to be less cautious around cyclists. We agreed that the ad was primarily targeted at motorists with the aim of raising awareness of the different kinds of real life scenarios in which they may encounter cyclists on the road. Following this, we noted Clearcast had stated that the ad featured a realistic situation, in that not all cyclists wore helmets and that the ad illustrated that the same care should be given to all cyclists, whether or not they wore a helmet.

Therefore, we concluded that because it was not a UK legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets and because the ad depicted a range of real life situations in which motorists may encounter cyclists on the road for the purposes of educating them about the risks to cyclists posed by poor driving behaviours we concluded that the ad was not socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.