A radio ad for the film Lights Out , broadcast on 16 August at 7:25 pm on Capital Radio East Midlands, featured an introductory voice-over stating, From the visionary filmmaker behind the Conjuring . A child's voice then said,
Every time I turn the lights off, there's this woman. A woman said I've been seeing her too , followed by a scream. The voice-over continued, Critics are calling it one of the year's best horrors. The woman then said, Everyone is afraid of the dark, and that's what she feeds on.
There was the sound of more screaming. The voice-over said, Chilling. The woman said, We need to leave. The voice-over continued, It will leave you sleeping with the lights on. The child said, She won't let that
happen. The woman, sounding very distressed, shouted, Stay in the light! , followed by sinister noises. The voice-over said, Lights Out. In cinemas Friday. Certificate 15.
A complainant challenged whether the ad had been scheduled appropriately, because it had frightened her child.
ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld
The ASA noted that, in line with the plot of the film, the audio clips in the ad suggested that there was something threatening associated with being in the dark or having the lights off. We acknowledged that a fear of the dark was common among
young children. We agreed with Radiocentre that the ominous tone of the ad meant that it should have been scheduled away from times when children aged under 16 were likely to be listening in order to minimise the possibility of children hearing
Prior to scheduling the ad, This is Global had consulted RAJAR figures for the time that the ad was to be aired and those figures had shown that the under-16 segment typically comprised a low proportion of the audience at that time. The ad had
been heard during school holidays, when children's listening patterns might be expected to differ slightly compared to term time. However, we noted that RAJAR figures for the specific day and time that the ad was broadcast showed that only 7% of
the listening audience was under 16, which we considered minimal. We concluded that the scheduling advice given by Radiocentre was appropriate and that it had been applied responsibly by the broadcasters, and that the ad therefore did not breach
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 5.1 (Children), 32.1 and 32.3 (Scheduling), but did not find it in breach.
David Currie has been appointed Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority and will succeed the current Chairman, Chris Smith next year.
The appointment was announced by the Advertising Standards Board of Finance, the bodies that fund the advertising self-regulation system, following consultation with the Department for Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS), Ofcom and the Advertising
Currie has good experience of media censorship as he was the founding Chairman of Ofcom.
Currie will take up his position from 1 October 2017.
A TV ad for a competition related to the film Nerve , seen on 3 August 2016, featured a voice-over that stated, Welcome to Nerve. Nerve is like truth or dare, minus the truth. To celebrate the release of Nerve, we are giving
you the chance to win a cash prize. We just want you to show some nerve. Head to mtv.co.uk/nerve to choose a dare, then share it at @MTVUK with #MTVGOTNERVE to enter. Are you ready to play? . The voice-over was accompanied by scenes from the
film, including a man on a skateboard holding onto the back of a moving car, a group of men jumping into the sea from a cliff, a man hanging from a crane, a man on a motorbike speeding through a red light, a woman walking across a ladder
horizontally spanning the gap between two buildings, someone falling from a crane, and a man lying between train tracks as a train passed over him.
The ad was given a post-9 pm scheduling restriction by Clearcast, which meant that it should not be shown before 9 pm or in or around programmes made for, or likely to be of particular appeal to, children.
A complainant challenged whether the ad condoned or encouraged dangerous practices.
Assessment: Complaint upheld
The ad featured scenes showing young adults engaged in a succession of highly dangerous activities. Various scenes had the appearance of being filmed on mobile phones, including some which featured overlaid graphics to look like video clips on
social media. A couple of scenes were shot as if the viewer were looking up through the screen of a smartphone, including a shot with overlaid social media-type graphics which showed a woman swiping the word ACCEPT . Those scenes
established the film's theme of young people daring each other, via social media, to video themselves undertaking dangerous behaviour and post the video on social media as proof they had completed the challenge. We noted that the theme tapped
into an ongoing trend in youth culture of young people challenging each other on social media into potentially dangerous behaviour, such as Neknominate and the Cinnamon Challenge .
We acknowledged the competition did not require participants to engage in any of the behaviour featured in the ad, and that some scenes showed the negative consequences of such behaviour. However, we considered that in the context of youth
culture around social media challenges, the ad's challenge to viewers to show some nerve in accompaniment with the scenes of young people engaging in dangerous behaviour condoned, and was likely to encourage, behaviour that prejudiced
health or safety. We acknowledged Clearcast had applied a scheduling restriction to prevent the ad being broadcast before 9 pm, but we considered that because it both condoned dangerous practices and was likely to encourage viewers, particularly
teenagers and young adults, to engage in dangerous practices, it should not have been broadcast at any time. We concluded the ad therefore breached the Code.
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about.
A Youtube ad for Kronenbourg, seen on 18 June 2016, featured Eric Cantona playing a fictional character who, with two dogs who wore barrels containing Kronenbourg around their necks, said delivered Kronenbourg to the deserving . In
other words, to people who had experienced unfortunate mishaps or who had enjoyed improbable success. The character stated Here in Alsace, live the most intelligent dogs in the world, the Alsace-tians. They deliver Kronenbourg to the deserving
. In one scenario, a monk who had been ringing church bells had become entangled in the ropes and the dogs set him free. Afterwards he was given a pint of Kronenbourg. In another scenario, a local postman had fallen off his bike into a snowdrift
and was trapped in the snow. The dogs dug him out of the snow and he was then seen sitting on a rock shivering holding a pint of Kronenbourg. In a third scenario, an actor was on stage playing a dramatic suicide scene and Eric Cantona's character
in the audience was seen rolling his eyes and sighing, as though he disliked the actor's performance. Once the performance was over, the actor received a standing ovation from the rest of the audience and the Alsace-tian dogs delivered his pint
of Kronenbourg in recognition of his success. In the final scene, Eric Cantona's character stated Man's best friend delivering one of man's greatest achievements. A taste supreme .
The Youth Alcohol Advertising Council (YAAC) challenged whether the ad implied that alcohol:
could enhance confidence; and
had therapeutic qualities, and was capable of changing mood, physical condition or behaviour.
Heineken pointed out that the scenarios had been resolved by the time the beer was consumed and the scenes ended after the characters had taken a sip of Kronenbourg. They believed that no continued physical or emotional uplift was shown which
could be attributed to the effect of the beer, and that it was not implied through the visuals or narrative that Kronenbourg had any therapeutic or restorative properties. They believed the ad implied that the characters were grateful for the
unexpected offer of a refreshing and locally popular beer.
ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the actor did not receive or consume alcohol before or during his performance, and it was only after he had finished his final scene, and had taken a bow, that the Alsace-tian dogs ran onto the stage and delivered a glass of
Kronenbourg. We also noted that the audience reacted positively to his performance before the dogs appeared on stage with the beer. We therefore considered that the ad did not imply that it was the Kronenbourg that had given him confidence in the
later part of his performance, or that it had enhanced his popularity with the audience, and we concluded that it did not breach the Code.
2. Not upheld
We noted that in both scenarios, the dogs rescued the trapped villagers as soon as they appeared on the scene and that after they had been released, they were given a Kronenbourg. We noted that the monk was seen smiling as he brought the glass to
his mouth and closed his eyes as he took a sip of the beer. We noted that the postman was shivering as he brought the glass to his mouth and, after taking a sip, he waved to Eric Cantona as a gesture of gratitude.
We considered that, although the men appeared pleased, the situations portrayed implied that any improvement in their mood was due to their relief at having been rescued from unpleasant situations, coupled with their gratitude at having received
an unexpected gift of a free beer. We considered that because the beer was consumed at the very end of the scenes after the rescues had taken place, there was no suggestion that it was the consumption of the beer, rather than the act of being
rescued, that had improved their mood. We also considered, for the same reason, that there was no suggestion that the beer had therapeutic properties that had helped the villagers either get out of or recover from their ordeals.
In the case of the postman, we noted he was still shivering after having taken a sip of the beer, although slightly less markedly, but we attributed that to him warming up naturally as a result of no longer being in the mound of snow, rather than
having taken a small sip of beer. We considered therefore the ad did not suggest it was the consumption of beer that had improved his physical condition.
For those reasons, we concluded that the ad did not imply that alcohol had therapeutic properties, or was capable of changing mood, physical condition or behaviour.
A post on the @WKDOfficial Twitter feed in May 2016 stated Our WKD tech team are trying to make your emoji dreams a reality. Below was an image of a phone screen showing an exchange of messages. The first said Gonna be a gr8 nite and included an image of three small blue bottles. The response included an image of two small red bottles and a
face with tears of joy emoji.
The Youth Alcohol Advertising Council challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because the use of emojis was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18 years of age.
WKD said they believed emojis were an ageless, common form of communication that did not have particular appeal to under 18s. They said they were used by a variety of brands (including other alcohol brands), institutions and non-governmental
organisations to communicate with adults and that they saw them as being interchangeable with exclamation marks and words, with the benefit of reducing the use of characters, which was a consideration given the limits on social media. They
supplied examples of emojis being used in communications by various companies and brands, and cited a magazine article which said that 92% of the UK population, including four out of five of those aged between 18 and 65, used emojis on a regular
WKD cited a report which had said Twitter was a media platform where 84% of users were over 18. They said the WKD Twitter page was protected by an age gate, where users were asked to submit their date of birth.
ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld
The CAP Code stated that alcohol ads must not be likely to appeal particularly to people under 18, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture. The ASA acknowledged WKD's comment that the content of their Twitter page was
targeted at those who declared themselves to be 18 years and over. However, we considered that the content nevertheless should not have particular appeal to under-18s. We considered emojis were likely to have appeal across many age groups
including, because of their cartoon-like appearance, those under 18. However, we considered they were not likely to have particular appeal to under-18s by reflecting or being associated with youth culture and concluded that the ad therefore did
not breach the Code.
A regional press ad for family law solicitors Humphries Kirk LLP, seen in the Bournemouth Daily Echo on 25 June 2016, featured an image that showed the torso section of four female ballet dancers, who had their arms crossed over their chest. Text
below the image stated Protect your assets ... Our solicitors are on hand to give you expert advice about divorce, finances, prenups, property disputes and children issues .
A complainant, who believed the ad was sexist and objectified women, challenged whether the ad was offensive.
ASA Assessment: complaint not upheld
The ASA noted that the ballet dancers featured in the ad were not depicted in a sexually suggestive or explicit pose, the ad was not sexual in tone and did not contain any form of nudity. Although the dancers' faces were partially obscured and
the image only featured the lower parts of their faces to just above their knees, we considered that the focus of the ad was on the balletic pose and the dance formation, rather than on a specific part of their bodies.
We considered that the pose held by the dancers were likely to be seen as graceful and typical of ballet poses, but noted that it could be interpreted by some readers as a visual innuendo of the phrase Protect your assets , in that that
the dancers were protective of, or defensive about, their bodies, or specifically their chest area. Although we acknowledged that some might find the reference to women's chests or breasts as assets distasteful, we considered that the
reference in the ad was not used in a salacious or lewd manner, but rather it was a mild innuendo. Because we considered that the ad did not portray the ballet dancers in a sexualised, degrading or indecent manner, and that any innuendo was light
hearted, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.