Six TV ads and one video-on-demand (VOD) ad, seen on various dates in September and October 2011, for a mobile phone retailer featured a ghost-like little girl.
Five of the TV ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) were two seconds
long and appeared sequentially between non-related ads in the course of a commercial break around six programmes that were broadcast on 28, 29 and 30 September. Ad (a) showed the girl standing with her arms by her sides at a distance. Ad (b) showed the
girl standing in the same way but closer to the camera. Ad (c) showed the girl lifting her hand to the side of her head mimicking the action of answering a telephone. Ad (d) showed the girl with her hand raised and four fingers extended. Ad (e) showed
the girl with her hand raised and her index and little fingers extended to create a U shape.
The sixth TV ad (f) was 30 seconds long and followed a woman walking through an underground car park as the little girl appeared
and disappeared in the background. The woman seemed scared and ran to her car, dropping her shopping. Once in the car, the girl appeared at the window and held out a mobile phone to the woman, who screamed. A child voice-over said, Hello, the Samsung
Tocco Icon is only £ 59.95 on pay as you go. An adult female voice-over whispered, Phones 4 U. Missing our deals will haunt you. The little girl was then shown making the Phones 4 U hand signal.
The VOD ad (g) was the same as TV ad (f) and was shown on 4OD at 10.45pm during the programme The Big Bang Theory.
601 viewers complained about the ads.
A number of viewers challenged whether ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) were offensive, irresponsible, unduly distressing and inappropriately scheduled at a time when children might see them.
A number of
viewers challenged whether ad (f) was offensive, irresponsible, unduly distressing and inappropriately scheduled at a time when children might see it.
One viewer challenged whether ad (g) was offensive, irresponsible and
unduly distressing, particularly to children.
ASA Assessment: Complaints Not Upheld
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the little girl's appearance was reminiscent of a character from a horror movie and we considered that the way in
which ads (a--e) had been broadcast, without context between non-related ads, was likely to have contributed to the unease felt by some adult viewers. However, we considered the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to be unduly
distressing for most adults, particularly those who were familiar with the Phones 4 U hand signal.
We understood that the little girl's appearance had distressed some children who had seen the ads. We noted that Clearcast
had applied a restriction which prevented ads (a--e) from being broadcast in or around programmes directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children and that the six programmes around which the ads had been scheduled were all broadcast after 9pm,
which reduced further the likelihood of them being seen by children. We considered the scheduling restriction applied by Clearcast was appropriate and that the ads had been responsibly scheduled to minimize the risk of children seeing them. Because of
this, and because we considered the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to be unduly distressing for most adults, we concluded that the ads did not breach the Code
We investigated the ads under BCAP Code
rules on Social responsibility, (Harm and offence and Children, but did not find them in breach.
2 & 3. Not upheld
We understood that Phones 4 U had intended to draw attention to the offer in ad (f) by
parodying a horror movie. We considered that the ad had created a sense of tension which peaked with the sudden appearance of the little girl at the car window and the woman's scream. We considered, however, that the content and tone of the message
delivered by the little girl alleviated that tension and we noted that the woman in the car did not appear frightened once the little girl had spoken. We considered that, although some adult viewers had found the ad distressing, the creation and
subsequent dissipation of moderate tension was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to be unduly distressing for most adults.
We understood that the horror movie theme of the ad had distressed some children
who had seen it. We noted that Clearcast had applied a restriction which prevented the ad from being broadcast before 7.30pm or around programmes directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children and we considered that those restrictions were
appropriate to minimize the risk of children, and particularly very young children, seeing the ad. Because of this, and because we considered the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to most adults, we concluded that the ad did not
breach the Code.
We noted that 4OD had applied the same timing restriction as had been applied to the TV ad (f) and that in addition to this the programme during which the ad was shown had carried a parental guidance flag. We
considered that those measures were responsible and appropriate to minimise the risk of children seeing the ad and we concluded the ad did not breach the Code.
We investigated ad (f) under BCAP Code rules on Social responsibility,
Harm and offence and hildren, but did not find it in breach.