| |
Advert censor bans Brewdog advert with masked swear word
|
|
|
 | 18th November 2020
|
|
| See article from asa.org.uk |
Poster and press ads for Brewdog Beer seen in August 2020: a. The poster, seen outside Fulham Boys' School, Camden Town Centre and Chiswick in London, in Northumberland Street, Newcastle upon Tyne and in George Square, Glasgow, featured large text
taking up the whole ad which stated F**k You CO2. Brewdog Beer Is Now Carbon Negative. The letters between F and K were obscured by a can of Brewdog Punk IPA. b. The press ad, a full or double-page ad seen in The Metro, The Week and The Economist, was
identical to the poster. Complainants challenged whether the text F**k You was offensive and inappropriate for display in a medium where it could be seen by children. BrewDog plc said they had wanted to shock people into thinking about the
planet and reducing and removing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. They said the billboard hosts and media print titles were aligned with their objectives and message and that The Economist, The Week and Metro recognised that the message would be
understood by their readers and were happy to run the ad. They said every media placement and poster site had been approved by the media owner or landlord and that every poster site had been planned in accordance with guidelines on proximity to schools
and religious buildings as advised by Outsmart. BrewDog said they had consulted a broader range of outdoor contractors and had consulted with them on the campaign and its environmental message versus the potential for offence. They said the campaign
had run at a time when schools were closed for the summer holidays and so any exposure to the ad by children going to or from school would have been limited. BrewDog said the ads implied a swear word but that it was not explicitly stated, which they
believed followed precedent of what was acceptable. They did not believe the message would have caused harm or offence. ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld The ASA acknowledged that the poster showed an obscured version of the word Fuck; that it
had been placed in accordance with guidelines on proximity to schools and religious buildings; that the ad had run during school summer holidays and that one local authority (Newcastle City Council) had been asked and considered the ad acceptable for
use. Nevertheless, we considered it would be clear to most of those who saw it that the ad referred to the word Fuck in the context of the expression Fuck you and was making a pun, in reference to the impact of climate change. We considered the word
Fuck was so likely to offend a general audience that such a reference should not appear in media where it was viewable by such an audience. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence and was not
appropriate for display in untargeted media. We acknowledged that most readers of Metro were adult. We considered that many would accept that the ad was using a play on words to make a statement about environmental issues as part of its marketing
message. Nevertheless, as a widely available, free newspaper, the ad was untargeted. Although the ad intended to use a pun to get its message across, we considered it would be clear to most readers that it referred to the word Fuck, a word that was
likely to be considered unacceptable by many readers in untargeted media. We also considered the expression the ad referred to Fuck you ? was likely to be associated with an aggressive tone. We concluded therefore that the ad was likely to cause serious
and widespread offence in Metro and was not appropriate for use in that publication. We considered, however, that an obscured version of the word Fuck reflected similar use of language elsewhere in The Week and The Economist and, in light of the ad's
intended message, was not out of place. We also acknowledged these publications were not free and had to be actively purchased in a shop or by subscription. While some readers might have found it distasteful, we considered it was unlikely to cause
serious or widespread offence in those publications. The ad must not appear again in the form complained of unless suitably targeted. We told BrewDog to ensure they avoided causing serious or widespread offence by, for example, avoiding references to
expletives in media targeted to a general audience. No further action necessary in respect of the ad appearing in The Week or The Economist.
|
| |
Advert censor sees red at unpolitically correct joke
|
|
|
| 23rd September 2020
|
|
| See article from asa.org.uk |
A Facebook post by the car leasing company, LINGsCars, posted on 16 June 2020, included the text ***BLACK***. In light of recent events, I'm resurrecting my Audi deal. The ad featured the image BLACK CARS MATTER. I ASKED HOLLY FOR A HEADLINE FOR THIS
A4...AND SHE SAID: 'ONCE YOU GO BLACK, YOU NEVER GO BACK!'. The ad then featured an image of a black raised hand with a wristband displaying the Audi logo alongside an image of a black Audi. Text stated AUDI A4 BLACK POWER EDITION. Further text stated
MANUAL GEARBOX (BIG GEARKNOB). Three complainants, who believed the image of the claims Black Cars Matter, Once you go black, you never go back and the image of the raised fist were insensitive and offensive, challenged whether
the ad was likely to cause serious offence and was socially irresponsible. Response Lingscars.com Ltd believed Black cars matter was inoffensive. They said the phrase was a pun on the launch of the new car, the Audi Black Edition,
and that Once you go black, you never go back was a well-known phrase that would not be offensive to black people. They said the image of the raised fist was the symbol of the Black Power movement; they argued it was a positive symbol and was not seen as
offensive in other contexts, such as the recent Grand Prix where Lewis Hamilton raised his fist. ASA Assessment Complaints upheld The ASA noted that the ad appeared shortly after the Black Lives Matter
protests and during a public debate about racism in the UK. We considered that people would understand the headline BLACK CARS MATTER, the image of the raised fist and the name Audi A4 Black Power Edition to be references to the Black Lives Matter and
Black Power movements. By using that slogan and iconography simply to draw attention to an ad for a car had the effect of trivialising the serious issues raised by those movements. The claim, ONCE YOU GO BLACK, YOU NEVER GO BACK! in addition to the claim
BIG GEARKNOB, we also considered was likely to be seen as objectifying and fetishising black men. Because those claims, particularly in the context of an ad for an unrelated product alongside references to recent protests opposing racism against black
people, were likely to cause serious offence on the grounds of race, we considered the ad was socially irresponsible. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 1.3 Advertisements must comply
with the law and broadcasters must make that a condition of acceptance. The ad must not appear again in its current form.
|
| |
UK advert censor whinges at Google and BBC for allowing sexy wish.com adverts on their apps
|
|
|
| 29th July
2020
|
|
| See article from asa.org.uk |
Four in-app ads for the e-commerce platform Wish:
a. The first ad, seen in the BBC Good Food Guide app on 13 April 2020, featured images including a naked mannequin wearing a cape, a woman shown from the neck down wearing a corset that partially exposed her breasts and revealed
nipple tassels, and an image of a reclining woman from the waist down wearing fishnet stockings and underwear. b. The second ad, seen in the Google News app on 22 April 2020, featured images including a woman wearing a jacket
that partially exposed her cleavage and midriff, and a woman shown from the neck down wearing a corset that partially exposed her breasts and revealed nipple tassels. c. The third ad, seen in the Google News app on 1 May
2020, featured the same images as ad (b), and an image of a prosthetic penis alongside the text Dildo + Ass Sex Cup + Penis Sleeve ... 6cm Longer ... 4cm Bigger. d. The fourth ad, seen in a Solitaire game on Google Play on 1
May 2020, featured the same images as ad (c), and an image of a reclining woman from the waist down wearing fishnet stockings and underwear. Issue
The ASA received three complaints: 1. three complainants, who considered that the content of the ads was sexually graphic, objected that the ads were likely to cause serious or widespread offence; and
2. two complainants challenged whether ads (b), (c) and (d) had been responsibly targeted because they were likely to be seen by children. Context Logic Inc trading as Wish.com said that their ads were
comprised of content from listings provided by third-party sellers on the Wish marketplace. Wish.com used techniques to identify and remove potentially objectionable content, which included filtering based on keywords in listing titles and tags applied
to the listing. Wish.com worked with an ad partner who used filtering and other measures to prevent Wish ads from appearing in inappropriate forums. Regarding the ads complained of, the keyword filters and image analysis used by
their ad partner was not sufficient in preventing the ads from being displayed in general audience forums. Wish.com halted UK campaigns with the ad partner in May 2020. They said that they were not currently advertising through the ad partner until they
had more confidence in their ability to identify mature content and prevent it from being shown in general audience forums. Wish.com agreed that the ads may not have been appropriate for all forums, such as those where the audience were likely to be
comprised of a large number of minors, and they were taking action to address the issue. However, they did not agree that the ads were likely to cause serious or widespread offence. ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld
1.Upheld All four ads depicted a range of garments, including nipple tassels shown on exposed breasts and a cape displayed on a nude mannequin, and ads (c) and (d) depicted a sex toy. These were all available
on the Wish.com website. While the images were relevant to the products sold, the ASA considered they were overtly sexual and contained explicit nudity. We considered that consumers using apps for recipes, the news and playing
solitaire would not expect to see sexually explicit content. We therefore concluded that in those contexts the ads were likely to cause both serious and widespread offence. 2. Upheld As referenced above, we
considered that the ads were overtly sexual and contained explicit nudity. We considered they therefore were not suitable to be seen by children. Ads (b) and (c) were seen in the Google News app and ad (d) was seen in a Solitaire game. We considered
that, given the content of the apps, they were likely to have a broad appeal to all ages including children, and therefore any ads that appeared within the apps should have been suitable for children. While Wish.com and their ad
partner had used measures such as keyword filters and image analysis to try to target them to a suitable audience, it had not prevented the ads being shown in mediums where children were likely to be part of the audience. Because the ads contained
explicit sexual images and had been placed in apps that were likely to be used by children, we concluded that the ads had been placed irresponsibly and breached the Code. The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We
told Context Logic Inc t/a Wish.com to ensure that their ads did not cause serious or widespread offence and to ensure their ads were appropriately targeted.
|
| |
Advert censor bans bed advert referring to flu bugs as nasty imports
|
|
|
| 11th March 2020
|
|
| See article from asa.org.uk |
A regional press ad for Vic Smith Beds, seen in the Enfield and Haringey Independent newspaper on 12 February 2020. The ad included a cartoon image of an upright mattress, which had a Union Jack on the front, and which was wearing a green surgical mask.
Text stated, BRITISH BUILD [sic] BEDS PROUDLY MADE IN THE UK. NO NASTY IMPORTS. Two complainants challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence by linking concern about the ongoing coronavirus health
emergency to nationality and/or race. ASA decision: Complaints upheld The ad was seen in the context of widespread news coverage of a developing major outbreak of novel coronavirus 2019-nCov, or
COVID-19 (coronavirus), in China, with a small but growing number of cases having been confirmed in the UK. News outlets had also reported some groups being physically and verbally targeted because of their nationality and/or race in relation to fears
about coronavirus. The ASA understood that, in particular, a number of Asian people had reported receiving abuse as a result of wearing face masks. The CAP Code required marketers to ensure that ads did not contain anything that
was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, with particular care to be taken to avoid causing offence on various grounds of protected characteristics, including race. We noted the reference to BRITISH BUILD [sic] beds, and the image of the Union
Jack, and we understood that the advertiser's intention was to draw attention to the fact that their beds were made in the UK. However, we also considered that the phrase NO NASTY IMPORTS, in combination with the image of the surgical mask, was likely to
be taken as a reference to the coronavirus outbreak. We considered that in combination with the image, the reference to nasty imports was likely to be read as a negative reference to immigration or race, and in particular as associating immigrants with
disease. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 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 race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. 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. (Harm and offence). = The ad must not appear again. We told Vic Smith Bedding Ltd t/a Vic Smith Beds to ensure they avoided causing serious and/or widespread offence on the
grounds of nationality or race.
|
| |
ASA bans sexy fashion poster from Misguided
|
|
|
| 4th March 2020
|
|
| See article from asa.org.uk |
Two posters for Missguided, a clothing company:
a. The first poster, seen on the London Underground on 14 November 2019, featured a model wearing a pink wrap mini-dress, which showed her legs and cleavage. b. The second poster, seen on 24 November
on a train station platform, featured the same model leaning against a side table wearing an unbuttoned jacket with nothing underneath, sheer tights and high heels.
Issue The complainants, who believed the images were overly sexualised and objectified women, challenged whether:
ad (a); and ad (b) were offensive. One of the complainants also challenged whether ad (a) was appropriate for display where it could be seen by children.
ASA Decision 1. Not upheld The ASA considered that the pose adopted by the model in ad (a) was no more than mildly sexual. The wrap style of the dress and her pose, with one arm
slightly behind her, meant that it fell open just by her breast, which we considered was likely to be in keeping with how the dress would ordinarily be worn, but featured no explicit nudity. We also considered the focus of the ad was on the model in
general and on the featured dress, rather than on a specific part of her body. While we acknowledged that some people might find the ad distasteful and the clothing revealing, we considered that the ad was unlikely to be seen as overtly sexual or as
objectifying either the model in the ad or women in general and we therefore concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. 2. Upheld The model in ad (b) was wearing a blazer with nothing underneath, which
exposed the side of her breast, and which was coupled with sheer tights, sheer gloves and underwear. We considered she would be seen as being in a state of undress and that the focus was on her chest area and lower abdomen rather than the clothing being
advertised. We also noted that her head was tilted back, with her mouth slightly open, and her leg was bent and raised, which we considered was likely to be seen as a sexually suggestive pose. We considered that the sexually suggestive styling and pose
would be seen as presenting women as sexual objects. Because the ad objectified women, we concluded that ad (b) was likely to cause serious offence. 3. Not upheld Ad (a) was seen on the London Underground and we accepted that
children were likely to have seen the ad. However, for the reasons stated in point 1 above, we considered the image was not overtly sexual, and therefore concluded that it had not been placed inappropriately. Ad (b) must not
appear again in its current form. We told Missguided Ltd not to use advertising that objectified women and which was likely to cause serious offence.
|
|
|
