Monday, 23 February 2015
Captain Catt-o Proposal
My idea is for a vegetarian cat food called 'Captain Catt-o's Synthefish'. The mascot for this brand is called Captain Catt-o. He is an orange cat with an pirate hat and a pirate captain's accent. The brand's slogan is "Yo-ho-ho and a bowl of yum! Veggie goodness for your kitty's tum with Captain Catt-o's Synthefish"
My idea for the advert is to have a sock puppet of Captain Catt-o and talk to the audience via a person talking through the character. The background will be filmed in the Media Suite, due to it's furniture giving it the feel of a house. The music is going to be upbeat, uplifting jazz music. The
My idea for the advert is to have a sock puppet of Captain Catt-o and talk to the audience via a person talking through the character. The background will be filmed in the Media Suite, due to it's furniture giving it the feel of a house. The music is going to be upbeat, uplifting jazz music. The
Wednesday, 4 February 2015
Advertising Analysis
I am doing an analysis of three adverts to examine the various factors about them, from their narration to their special effects. The advert examinations are as follows:
Money Super Market.com
Narrative
The adverts from Money Super Market are part of a series, however the specific advert that I am analysing is a standalone advert and did not have a direct sequel, so to speak.
Visuals
The visuals are of a man riding an elephant, complete with a steering wheel and a rear licence plate. The elephant appears to be riding through an unnamed city (suspected to be New York, as the ad gives an impression of Americano).
Verbal
The narrator uses the word "Epic!" to try to describe how epic "Graeme" feels after using the services of Money Super Market.com's and at end of the advert, the vocabulary takes a comical turn because a baby/toddler with a large afro says in a deep voice "Graeme, you're so Money Super Market!".
Order of the information
There was no repetition in the advert, however there was a placement at the end of the advert with the Money Super Market logo and slogan appearing on the screen near the end of the advert.
Music
The music seems to be very much in the speed and style of the artists originally performed it. It could also possibly have some type of back-beat in it to make it sound more modern.
SFX/Graphics
The special effects are of green-screen, as the city was clearly green-screen and was synthetic. The elephant was possibly real, but the car instruments on the elephant were clearly synthetic.
Persuasive Techniques
The information about the service that the product provides is evident. For example, the narrator says "This is Graeme. Graeme saved money at Money Super Market, and now he feels EPIC!". What this advert is essentially saying is that you too can feel epic if you use Money Super Market.
Brand identification is also present, albeit at the end of the advert. The Money Super Market logo and slogan is also present.
Brand identification is also present, albeit at the end of the advert. The Money Super Market logo and slogan is also present.
Compare the Market.com
Narrative
The Compare the Market.com company has a long-running series TV shorts featuring Alexander Meerkat and co, promoting their website through comical means. So there is narartive and sequel running through this advert.
Visuals
The visuals are of Alexander and Sergei departing from Africa and leaving Oleg in his new home, then leaving the scene in a 4x4. The scene then changes to an image of an Oleg stuffed toy in the grass.
Verbal
Alexander realises the Oleg is "very happy here". The next time that any vocabulary is heard is when Oleg says "Bye, bye, Uncle Alexander. Bye, bye, Auntie Sergei". The final time that vocabulary is displayed is when Alexander (in a voice-over) talks about how customers must act quickly if they want an Oleg Africa Safari stuffed plush.
Order of the information
There is no repetition in this advert, but there is a placement at the end of the advert with the Compare the Market.com logo appearing on the screen. This is so as to not divert attention from Oleg's departure.
Music
The music is incredibly slow-paced and calm with no changes in rhythm, apart from the ending when Alexander and Sergei drive off into the distance.
Graphics/SFX
The Meerkats are clearly green-screen or are in CGI animation. However, the background could be real, as it could be taken from an angle or shrunk to make the meerkats' world look realistic.
Persuasive Techniques
This advert uses emotional manipulation to make the viewer feel sad that Oleg is staying in Africa and that Alexander and Sergei are returning home without him. This emotion is also carried on in the fact that the company that stating that it their last chance to get an Oleg stuffed toy. This plays on people's sadness at Oleg's departure and could even buy an Oleg toy because they miss Oleg on the TV.
Confused.com
Narrative
The Confused.com company has a long-running series of TV ad shorts featuring Brian the robot promoting Confused.com's car insurance in a way that appeals to children and adults alike. This is a part of that ad series and therefore has a canonical sequel and prequel.
Visuals
The visuals of this ad are of Brian being attracted to a large magnet, about to be scrapped. Then a group of four new robot characters, all varying in size, race away to rescue Brian and save him just in time from being crushed.
Verbal
Brian begins talking to two scrap dealers and they attach him to a magnet and Brian says "Help!" while being suspended from the magnet. Four robots then say "Help Brian!" and they go to the scrapyard. Brain, now disorientated, says "I can save you cars on your pound insurance". When the four robots rescue Brian, he says "Thank You!".
Order of the Information
There is no repetition in this ad, but the logo of the company appears at the end of the advert.
Music
The music of the advert is fast-paced, dramatic and rapidly goes up tempo as Brian gets closer to the crusher. The music then gradually relaxes as Brian is rescued.
SFX/Graphics
The scrapyard is possibly real, as it is shown how it would look in real life. However, the robots are clearly products of green-screen or some type of CGI or 3-D animation.
Persuasive Techniques
This advert also plays on people's sadness because at the start of the advert, the viewer is led to believe that Brian is about to die. At the last moment, the viewers' hopes are relieved when Brian is rescued. The viewer might then buy car insurance on Confused.com because they think about Brian and what he symbolises.
Brand identification is present in this advert as well because the Confused.com logo appears at the end of the advert.
Brand identification is present in this advert as well because the Confused.com logo appears at the end of the advert.
Banned and Complained About Adverts
As mentioned previously, there are some adverts that do not meet with or comply with ASA or CAP code standards. These adverts are investigated by the ASA can even be outright banned in some cases. Here are three examples of adverts that have been complained about and/or banned.
1) Kentucky Fried Chicken
Date: 21st May 2014
Number of Complaints: 2
Reason: 939 people complained that the ads were political in nature, the theme and context of the ads, for example a dog drowning in the storybook and the depiction of the young girl to whom the story was being read, could have been distressing for people who saw it, the representation of CO2 as a rising cloud of black smog was misleading, the claim "over 40% of CO2 was coming from everyday things" was misleading, and the claims about possible events of strange weather and flooding in the UK was exaggerated, distressing and misleading.
Response: The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said that their 'Act on CO2' campaign had been successful in building awareness of climate change and helping the nation to reduce it's carbon footprint. However, they were uncertain about the likely effects of climate change. The DECC expressed their regret about the theme and context of the ads upsetting children and that some viewers found the context and imagery misleading and distressing.
Action: The ad must never appear again in the same form.
10) Kentucky Fried Chicken "Zinger Crunchy Salad" Ad
Date: 2005
Reason: 1,671 viewers complained that the advert promoted bad manners in a way that makes it seem funny.
Response: KFC stated that "It is not our aim to offend or upset the general public and we apologise if we had done so".
Action: The ASA ruled on these complaints and had the ad banned.
Reason: Ninety-eight people complained that the ad was offensive, and claimed that the depiction of Jesus Christ and the Sacred Heart, the use of the term "Miraculous" in that context and it's publication during the Easter period was disrespectful, mocked and belittled the Christian faith.
Response: Phones 4 U said that the ad was not intended to be disrespectful to the Christian faith nor to offend any Christians. They explained that they intention had been to run a press ad incorporating what they thought was a light-hearted, positive and contemporary image of Christianity during the Easter period.
They also explained that they had taken these complaints seriously and sent individual apology letters to the people who complained and said that they had withdrawn the ads as soon as the negative response had been notified.
Action: The ASA ruled that the ad must never appear again in the same form, but also that they acknowledge Phones 4 U's remorse and trust their assurance that the ad will never appear in the same form again.
15) Hovis Hearty Oats Bread "70's Teenage Girl" Ad
Reason: The two complaints stated that the ad was misleading, due to the on-screen text contradicting the price claims.
Response: KFC stated that whilst the ad's on-screen text said that a bucket of chicken and fries was only "99p" and some outlets charged £9.99 for the same meal depicted in the ad, they said that the meal did cost 99p in 99% of UK-based stores and that the ad said that "prices may vary".
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
Reason: A number of viewers complained that the ad was offensive, irresponsible, needlessly distressing, and inappropriately scheduled before the Watershed.
2) Phones 4 U "Little Girl" Advert
Date: 21st December 2011
Number of complaints: 601
Reason: A number of viewers complained that the ad was offensive, irresponsible, needlessly distressing, and inappropriately scheduled before the Watershed.
Response: Phones 4 U and their advertising agency Adam & Eve stated that the advert was meant to be a parody of horror movies. They said that they had tried to make the ad light-hearted using the classic Phones 4 U hand signal, but that gimmick had worked to no avail and people viewed the ad with a sense of menace and threat.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
3) Kayak "Brain Surgery" Ad
Date: 28th November 2012
Number of complaints: 441
Reason: A number of people claimed that the theme of the ad was offensive.
Some complaints, which included people who either themselves or had family members about to undergo or have undergone brain surgery and people who had lost family members to brain tumours or other neurological conditions, complained that the ad was distressing and deeply upsetting.
Twenty-five people complained that the ad would be distressing to children, and that it was inappropriate to broadcast during the day when children might see it.
Sixteen people complained that the ad was offensive to surgeons and the medical profession in general.
Some complaints, which included people who either themselves or had family members about to undergo or have undergone brain surgery and people who had lost family members to brain tumours or other neurological conditions, complained that the ad was distressing and deeply upsetting.
Twenty-five people complained that the ad would be distressing to children, and that it was inappropriate to broadcast during the day when children might see it.
Sixteen people complained that the ad was offensive to surgeons and the medical profession in general.
Response: Kayak said that they chose humour for a number of reasons but they also acknowledged that humour can be offensive at times.
Kayak believed that the ad was obviously a parody. It portrayed a situation that was completely absurd to make a point about the lengthy range of travel deals when, instead, they could contact Kayak. They also said that the ad never portrayed real-life drama nor did it prey on people's fear or anxiety.
Kayak believed that the ad was obviously a parody. It portrayed a situation that was completely absurd to make a point about the lengthy range of travel deals when, instead, they could contact Kayak. They also said that the ad never portrayed real-life drama nor did it prey on people's fear or anxiety.
Action: The ASA ruled that the ad must never appear on television in the same form again.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
Response: Heineken UK Ltd said that the principal character was not shown consuming immoderate amounts of alcohol nor was it implied that he was intoxicated.
They also said that later in the ad when the character was shown at a live entertainment venue in the evening, he was not shown drinking form the bottle, and said thet even if he had been, it would have been a moderate amount of alcohol and not to excess.
4) Paddy Power "Blind Football" Advert
Date: 21st July 2010
Number of complaints: 1091
Reason: 1091 viewers complained that the ad was offensive to blind people and was harmful, because it could be used to promote and/or condone animal cruelty.
Response: Paddy Power said that they always aim to creative entertaining and innovative advertising campaigns and had taken extensive steps to ensure that no offence or harm was caused by the ad. They also said that the ad did not show the cat being kicked or suffering any violence or cruelty, nor was the cat shown to be in distress at any time.
They said that the ad depicted a normal event but featured an action that was so unlikely that it was absurd and was a "worst nightmare" scenario. They also said that they chose a blind football match because it enabled Paddy Power to promote and create awareness of a lesser-known sport, in the year in which the IBSA World Blind Football Championships were to take place.
They also said that the ad was slapstick in nature, and that the humour occurred as a result of the viewers anticipating the scene's absurd consequence.
They said that the ad depicted a normal event but featured an action that was so unlikely that it was absurd and was a "worst nightmare" scenario. They also said that they chose a blind football match because it enabled Paddy Power to promote and create awareness of a lesser-known sport, in the year in which the IBSA World Blind Football Championships were to take place.
They also said that the ad was slapstick in nature, and that the humour occurred as a result of the viewers anticipating the scene's absurd consequence.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
5) Marie Stopes International "Are You Late?" Ad
Date: August 4th 2010
Number of complaints: 1054
Reason: The 1054 complaints that the ad was misleading, offensive and harmful and violated specific CAP code rules because: it promoted abortion, it trivialised the difficult decision faced by women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, it would be distressing for women who had taken the decision to have an abortion, and equated the life of an unborn child to decisions about consumer goods,.
They said that the ad also failed to mention that pregnant women who want advice should contact their GP or family members, it did not take take into account the views of the father, was sexist towards women because it implied that pregnancy is solely the woman's responsibility, did not mention the physical and mental health risks or physical and psychological effects that could be experienced after an abortion.
The complaints also stated that the ad promoted promiscuity amongst young people, implied that abortions were easier than they were in reality, and that by featuring a mother with her small children, the ad implied that the life of an unborn child is less important than a woman's existing children.
They said that the ad also failed to mention that pregnant women who want advice should contact their GP or family members, it did not take take into account the views of the father, was sexist towards women because it implied that pregnancy is solely the woman's responsibility, did not mention the physical and mental health risks or physical and psychological effects that could be experienced after an abortion.
The complaints also stated that the ad promoted promiscuity amongst young people, implied that abortions were easier than they were in reality, and that by featuring a mother with her small children, the ad implied that the life of an unborn child is less important than a woman's existing children.
Response: Marie Stopes International said that the ad did not mention abortion nor promote it. The ad was designed to draw attention to their Advice Line and general advice service for any woman concerned with a missed period or unplanned pregnancy.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
6) Heineken "Open Your City" Ad
Date: 11th March 2015
Number of complaints: 1
Reason: The Youth Alcohol Advertisiing Council stated that the ad was irresponsible because it encouraged excessively drinking more than the recommended daily limit, linked alcohol with activities that are unwise and unsafe and implied that alcohol contributes to an individual's popularity or confidence.
Response: Heineken UK Ltd said that the principal character was not shown consuming immoderate amounts of alcohol nor was it implied that he was intoxicated.
They also said that later in the ad when the character was shown at a live entertainment venue in the evening, he was not shown drinking form the bottle, and said thet even if he had been, it would have been a moderate amount of alcohol and not to excess.
Action:.No further sanctions or action was taken.
7) Department of Energy and Climate Change "Story Time" Ad
Date: 17th March 2010
Number of complaints: 939
Reason: 939 people complained that the ads were political in nature, the theme and context of the ads, for example a dog drowning in the storybook and the depiction of the young girl to whom the story was being read, could have been distressing for people who saw it, the representation of CO2 as a rising cloud of black smog was misleading, the claim "over 40% of CO2 was coming from everyday things" was misleading, and the claims about possible events of strange weather and flooding in the UK was exaggerated, distressing and misleading.
Response: The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said that their 'Act on CO2' campaign had been successful in building awareness of climate change and helping the nation to reduce it's carbon footprint. However, they were uncertain about the likely effects of climate change. The DECC expressed their regret about the theme and context of the ads upsetting children and that some viewers found the context and imagery misleading and distressing.
Action: The ad must never appear again in the same form.
8) Department for Transport "Tales of the Road - The Girl Who Didn't Dress Bright" Ad
Date: 3rd March 2010
Number of Complaints: 5
Reason: Five viewers, most of whom saw the ad on children's channels, believed that the ad was unsuitable for broadcast when children could see it, because their own young children, had been distressed by it.
Response: The Department of Transport (DfT) said that warning children about the dangers of not dressing brightly in the dark was a cornerstone in their Child Road Safety Policy. They said that their new campaign, 'Tales of the Road', featured cartoon characters that had been injured in road accidents and were used to tell cautionary tales about specific road safety behaviour all age groups. They said that they had worked hard to ensure that the campaign educated children rather than disturb them.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
9) Xbox "Life is Short" Ad
Date: 6th June 2002
Number of Complaints: 136
Reason: 136 viewers found the TV ad to be offensive, shocking, in bad taste, insensitive, that the final sense was unnecessary and that the ad overall caused considerable distress.
Among the angry viewers were a pregnant woman and a new mother who objected to the child birth scene.
Another woman who had lost a baby during child birth said it was an upsetting reminder of her own experience.
20 recently bereaved viewers told the ITC that they found the ad particularly offensive.
Other viewers who had suffered a major illness also considered the ad to be insensitive.
The ITC watchdog said that the man's screams suggest a traumatic experience which, together with the reminder that life is short, made the final scene even more shocking.
Among the angry viewers were a pregnant woman and a new mother who objected to the child birth scene.
Another woman who had lost a baby during child birth said it was an upsetting reminder of her own experience.
20 recently bereaved viewers told the ITC that they found the ad particularly offensive.
Other viewers who had suffered a major illness also considered the ad to be insensitive.
The ITC watchdog said that the man's screams suggest a traumatic experience which, together with the reminder that life is short, made the final scene even more shocking.
Response: A Microsoft spokeswoman said that the ad would not be shown on TV again, but would still be available to view on the internet and in cinemas.
Action: The ASA (then ITC) agreed that the ad was shocking and insensitive and stated that the ad could not appear on TV again.
Action: The ASA (then ITC) agreed that the ad was shocking and insensitive and stated that the ad could not appear on TV again.
10) Kentucky Fried Chicken "Zinger Crunchy Salad" Ad
Date: 2005
Number of complaints: 1,671 (The most complained about advert in the UK ever)
Reason: 1,671 viewers complained that the advert promoted bad manners in a way that makes it seem funny.
Response: KFC stated that "It is not our aim to offend or upset the general public and we apologise if we had done so".
Action: The ASA ruled on these complaints and had the ad banned.
11) Phones 4 U "Jesus" AD
Date: 21st April 2011
Number of complaints: 98
Response: Phones 4 U said that the ad was not intended to be disrespectful to the Christian faith nor to offend any Christians. They explained that they intention had been to run a press ad incorporating what they thought was a light-hearted, positive and contemporary image of Christianity during the Easter period.
They also explained that they had taken these complaints seriously and sent individual apology letters to the people who complained and said that they had withdrawn the ads as soon as the negative response had been notified.
Action: The ASA ruled that the ad must never appear again in the same form, but also that they acknowledge Phones 4 U's remorse and trust their assurance that the ad will never appear in the same form again.
12) Booking.com Ad
Date: 18th February 2015
Number of complaints: 2345
Reason: 2345 people complained that they believed that the word "booking" had been substituted for a swear word, whether the ad was irresponsible because it could encourage swearing amongst children. Some people complained that they watched the ad on children's channels such as CITV, or in the cinema during films such as Paddington and Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb and thought that the ad was inappropriately placed.
Response: Booking.com said that the ad's purpose was to promote their brand and therefore have the brand name repeated throughout the ad. They also stated that their ad was not offensive and that there was not ambiguous meaning behind the word "booking". Booking.com also stated that their ad contained no swear words or words that sounded as if they were derived from swear words.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
Response: Booking.com said that the ad's purpose was to promote their brand and therefore have the brand name repeated throughout the ad. They also stated that their ad was not offensive and that there was not ambiguous meaning behind the word "booking". Booking.com also stated that their ad contained no swear words or words that sounded as if they were derived from swear words.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
13) Giff Gaff Halloween Ad
Date: 4th February 2015
Number of complaints: 2
Reason: One person, whose child had seen the ad on a channel for children, complained that the ad was inappropriate to children. The other person, who had watched the ad numerous times whilst watching music videos, pointed that the ad was impossible to skip until it had played for three seconds and said that the ad was needlessly distressing.
Response: GiffGaff explained that the ad was supposed to be a parody of horror films and was intended to clever and funny instead of scary and disturbing.
They also said that it was supposed to raise awareness of GiffGaff during the Halloween period and said that they took meticulous precautions to ensure that children could not see the ad, but also said that it was impossible to monitor every viewer's age.
They also said that it was supposed to raise awareness of GiffGaff during the Halloween period and said that they took meticulous precautions to ensure that children could not see the ad, but also said that it was impossible to monitor every viewer's age.
GiffGaff said that the ad was unlikely to cause harm to anyone under the age of 18 and that the tension and horror of the first twenty seconds quickly turned into humour as the zombies and other horror-themed characters appeared.
They also said that they believe that the first three seconds of the ad were not needlessly distressing and that only the woman's screams can be heard in that space of time.
They also said that they believe that the first three seconds of the ad were not needlessly distressing and that only the woman's screams can be heard in that space of time.
Action: The ASA rules that Giff Gaff's future ads must be targeted appropriately.
14) Pot Noodle "Brian" Ad
Date: 2nd October 2013
Number of complaints: 2
Reason: Two people complained that the ad was offensive and could condone or encourage discriminatory behaviour towards transsexual people.
Response: Unilever UK Ltd claimed that the ad was a cheeky and humourous twist to spoof the absurdly lavish lifestyle of a WAG and the highly stylised nature of perfume ads. They also said that the Brian character did not portray or reflect any transsexual person. They also said that Brian was not placed in any situation where he was the victim of discriminatory behaviour or treatment.
Unilever also said that the voice-over did not contain any content that would incite people to behave negatively towards trans sexual people nor did the ad invite the audience to spoeculate on Brian's gender identity.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
15) Hovis Hearty Oats Bread "70's Teenage Girl" Ad
Date: 20th October 2010
Number of complaints: 4
Reason: All four viewers complained that the ad was irresponsible and could condone anti-social behaviour and bullying. One viewer also complained that the scene with the dog was cruel and could encourage imitations.
Response: Premier Foods Group Ltd said that the ads had a sense of someone reminiscing rather than based on current reality. They also stated that the child's actions were not without consequence. The girl was repeatedly reprimanded by adults in the ad. In addition, they also said that with the clothes and toys that the charcters had, they were unlikely to be seen as "cool" by today's children.
They also said that the 1970's were a time when children were given greater freedom that they are permitted today. They said that they do not agree that the ad as a whole could encourage or condone bullying, violence or cruelty that could lead to physical harm to children.
Premier Foods also said that whilst the girl was mildly teasing the dog, the scene could not be described as being irresponsible and cruel.
They also stated that the child's actions were boisterous and playful rather than malicious and threatening. This was reinforced by the concluding voice-over, "There comes a time when it's good to be good", which gave a clear message that the child's actions were not to be copied.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
Reason: Four people, who understood that Cloud storage meant that most users would not be stored on the device and could only be accessed when online, complained that the ad misleadingly implied that all of a user's files were stored on the device.
One of the people, who understood that the device only came with free access to the Cloud for one year and then users had to pay a subscription fee for access, also complained that the ad was misleading by omission.
Response: Microsoft Ltd said that as the women were discussing the Cloud, a disclaimer appeared on-screen stating "Internet connection required". They said that the disclaimer was seen as sufficent to indicate when showing an app or a feature of the device that required, or worked better with, internet connection.
17) British Heart Foundation "Hands Only CPR" Ad
Reason: 20 people complained that the ad was harmful and encouraged unsafe behaviour because it showed an incorrect CPR technique.
Response: The British Heart Foundation said that the ad's aim was to increase bystander intervention when someone is going into cardiac arrest. They also said that the ad encouraged viewers to visit the BHF website, which contains a section called "Ask Vinnie".
The BHF also said that the Resuscitation Council UK, the European Resuscitation Council and the American Heart Association recommend hands only CPR. They said that in page 42 of the European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2010, it stated that "When time or opportunity is limited, timing shiuld be focused on chest compression only CPR".
As well as this, the BHF said that chest compressions should be hard and fast for maximum effectiveness, and that whilst a bystander could injure the casaulty, a broken rib or bruising was a small price to pay.
The Resuscitation Council UK also said that there was only so much information could be put into a 40 second ad, so only key messages regarding recognition, calling for help and starting compressions was included. They also said that pulse checking was no longer taught, as it is difficult to feel for a pulse in an emergency, and an ambulance dispatcher could provide much more detailed information when 999 is called.
Action: No further action or sanctions were taken.
Reason: 69 people complained that the ad was irresponsible because it condoned and encouraged crime and anti-social behaviour and encouraged behaviour that violate health and safety laws.
49 people complained that the ad was offensive because it showed actions which might lead to a traffic accident and would cause serious offense to victims of coach crashes and their families.
Response: Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd stated that they sought to make an original, amusing, light-hearted ad in an imaginative and creative way.
They also said that many TV ads use potentially criminal and anti-social behaviour to make a point. They believed that the action of the man letting down one of the coach's tyres was not condoned in the ad; rather, one of the other holiday-makers called out in alarm "Hey! What do you think you're doing?!" and immediately showed the driver what had happened, whilst the people sitting on the bus looked concerned.
Thomas Cook did not consider that the action showed in the ad might lead to a traffic accident, but in fact implied the opposite outcome. They noted that the coach was stationary, the man acted in full view of everyone present, and that the flat tyre was brought to the attention of other passengers and the driver by the woman challenging him. They said that they did not believe that any wider interpretation of the ad was reasonable.
Action: The ad must never be broadcast again in the same form.
Reason: Two people complained that the reference to barriers and checkpoints was misleading, because the ad did not state that they exist as protection against the threat of terrorist attacks.
The images of concrete security walls in the ad was misleading, because the majority of the length of the barrier is a wire mesh fence rather than a concrete wall.
They also complained that the comparisons between Palestinians' access to healthcare and UK citizens' access to healthcare in Oxford was misleading, because Oxford is not under sustained threat of terrorist attacks and therefore did not require security checkpoints.
Moreover, they complained that the ad was socially irresponsible, because they believe that it could encourage anti-semitism and discrimination against British Jews, and that the overall depiction of the state of Israel in the ad could be offensive to British Jews, especially due to the ad's publication being on Jewish New Year.
Furthermore, they complained that the fabricated image of a woman and her child being denied access at a checkpoint was extremely shocking and was similar to images related to fascism.
In addition, they complained that the ad could damage Israel's tourism industry.
Response: Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) said that the ad referred to both checkpoints and road barriers. They said that as well as checkpoints, Israel had blocked the main access roads to the West Bank using concrete blocks, iron gates and trenches. They also said that they had based these claims on figures from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in a report in December 2012 on "The Impact of Israel's settlement policies".
The report stated that "…approximately 540 internal checkpoints, roadblocks and other obstacles that impair Palestinian movement within the West Bank".
Action: The ASA ruled that the ad must never again the same form. They also stated that they have told MAP to ensure that they do not mislead readers into believing that hospital permit request rejection statistics include patients' companions and family members, and that they should have evidence for these claims in future advertisements.
Reason: 24 people complained that the ad could encourage dangerous imitations amiong children, particulary because it was shown before the 9pm watershed.
11 people complained that the ad was irresponsible, offensive and distressing, because it trivalised violent behaviour, gun crime and knife crime.
Response: Adams Foods Ltd stated the ad was not intended to cause harm, offense or potentially dangerous imitations by children. They said that it was intended to portray a surreal situation with a miniature cowboy talking in a very serious tone about cheddar cheese and that the razor and gun had deliberately oversized to emphasise the sense of surrealism.
They pointed out that the cowboy had used the razor correctly and was not shown doing anything untoward with it or using it in an inappropriate way.
Adams Foods also said that the gun scene was clearly intended to be humourous because the cat was almost double the size of the cowboy. They did not believe that the scene was irresponsible given that films, such as westerns, were shown at any time of the day and frequently showed guns being fired and people being injured or even killed by them.
Action: The ASA stated that Adams Foods immediately reschedule the showing of the ad before the watershed.
They also said that the style of sketch depicted in the ad was, in which a "foriegn language film" was acted out and badly translated, was a well-known staple of improvisational comedy.
As well as this, they also said that the sketch was more like a spoof of 1970's martial arts films rather than an attack on any Asian people or language.
Response: Premier Foods Group Ltd said that the ads had a sense of someone reminiscing rather than based on current reality. They also stated that the child's actions were not without consequence. The girl was repeatedly reprimanded by adults in the ad. In addition, they also said that with the clothes and toys that the charcters had, they were unlikely to be seen as "cool" by today's children.
They also said that the 1970's were a time when children were given greater freedom that they are permitted today. They said that they do not agree that the ad as a whole could encourage or condone bullying, violence or cruelty that could lead to physical harm to children.
Premier Foods also said that whilst the girl was mildly teasing the dog, the scene could not be described as being irresponsible and cruel.
They also stated that the child's actions were boisterous and playful rather than malicious and threatening. This was reinforced by the concluding voice-over, "There comes a time when it's good to be good", which gave a clear message that the child's actions were not to be copied.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
16) Microsoft " HP Stream 11" Ad
Date: 11th March 2015
Number of complaints: 4
Reason: Four people, who understood that Cloud storage meant that most users would not be stored on the device and could only be accessed when online, complained that the ad misleadingly implied that all of a user's files were stored on the device.
One of the people, who understood that the device only came with free access to the Cloud for one year and then users had to pay a subscription fee for access, also complained that the ad was misleading by omission.
Response: Microsoft Ltd said that as the women were discussing the Cloud, a disclaimer appeared on-screen stating "Internet connection required". They said that the disclaimer was seen as sufficent to indicate when showing an app or a feature of the device that required, or worked better with, internet connection.
Microsoft also highlighted that the URL www.microsoft.com/stream was displayed at the end of the ad, and if a consumer visited the site there was more information on the device, including the amount of storage space that the device itself had, the ability to work online or offline and additional information about it's OneDrive data storage system.
They also aknowledged that the Cloud was a challenging concept to some consumers, but believed that the average consumer to whom the ad was targeted would understand the overall message.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
17) British Heart Foundation "Hands Only CPR" Ad
Date: 11th April 2012
Number of complaints: 20
Reason: 20 people complained that the ad was harmful and encouraged unsafe behaviour because it showed an incorrect CPR technique.
Response: The British Heart Foundation said that the ad's aim was to increase bystander intervention when someone is going into cardiac arrest. They also said that the ad encouraged viewers to visit the BHF website, which contains a section called "Ask Vinnie".
The BHF also said that the Resuscitation Council UK, the European Resuscitation Council and the American Heart Association recommend hands only CPR. They said that in page 42 of the European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2010, it stated that "When time or opportunity is limited, timing shiuld be focused on chest compression only CPR".
As well as this, the BHF said that chest compressions should be hard and fast for maximum effectiveness, and that whilst a bystander could injure the casaulty, a broken rib or bruising was a small price to pay.
The Resuscitation Council UK also said that there was only so much information could be put into a 40 second ad, so only key messages regarding recognition, calling for help and starting compressions was included. They also said that pulse checking was no longer taught, as it is difficult to feel for a pulse in an emergency, and an ambulance dispatcher could provide much more detailed information when 999 is called.
Action: No further action or sanctions were taken.
18) Thomas Cook "Holidays You Don't Want to Retuen From' Ad
Date: 15th May 2013
Number of complaints: 118
Reason: 69 people complained that the ad was irresponsible because it condoned and encouraged crime and anti-social behaviour and encouraged behaviour that violate health and safety laws.
49 people complained that the ad was offensive because it showed actions which might lead to a traffic accident and would cause serious offense to victims of coach crashes and their families.
Response: Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd stated that they sought to make an original, amusing, light-hearted ad in an imaginative and creative way.
They also said that many TV ads use potentially criminal and anti-social behaviour to make a point. They believed that the action of the man letting down one of the coach's tyres was not condoned in the ad; rather, one of the other holiday-makers called out in alarm "Hey! What do you think you're doing?!" and immediately showed the driver what had happened, whilst the people sitting on the bus looked concerned.
Thomas Cook did not consider that the action showed in the ad might lead to a traffic accident, but in fact implied the opposite outcome. They noted that the coach was stationary, the man acted in full view of everyone present, and that the flat tyre was brought to the attention of other passengers and the driver by the woman challenging him. They said that they did not believe that any wider interpretation of the ad was reasonable.
Action: The ad must never be broadcast again in the same form.
19) Medical Aid for Palestinians
Date: 29th April 2015
Number of complaints: 2
The images of concrete security walls in the ad was misleading, because the majority of the length of the barrier is a wire mesh fence rather than a concrete wall.
They also complained that the comparisons between Palestinians' access to healthcare and UK citizens' access to healthcare in Oxford was misleading, because Oxford is not under sustained threat of terrorist attacks and therefore did not require security checkpoints.
Moreover, they complained that the ad was socially irresponsible, because they believe that it could encourage anti-semitism and discrimination against British Jews, and that the overall depiction of the state of Israel in the ad could be offensive to British Jews, especially due to the ad's publication being on Jewish New Year.
Furthermore, they complained that the fabricated image of a woman and her child being denied access at a checkpoint was extremely shocking and was similar to images related to fascism.
In addition, they complained that the ad could damage Israel's tourism industry.
Response: Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) said that the ad referred to both checkpoints and road barriers. They said that as well as checkpoints, Israel had blocked the main access roads to the West Bank using concrete blocks, iron gates and trenches. They also said that they had based these claims on figures from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in a report in December 2012 on "The Impact of Israel's settlement policies".
The report stated that "…approximately 540 internal checkpoints, roadblocks and other obstacles that impair Palestinian movement within the West Bank".
Action: The ASA ruled that the ad must never again the same form. They also stated that they have told MAP to ensure that they do not mislead readers into believing that hospital permit request rejection statistics include patients' companions and family members, and that they should have evidence for these claims in future advertisements.
20) Pilgrim's Choice Cheese "Miniature Cowboy" Ad
Date: 13th June 2012
Number of complaints: 36
Reason: 24 people complained that the ad could encourage dangerous imitations amiong children, particulary because it was shown before the 9pm watershed.
11 people complained that the ad was irresponsible, offensive and distressing, because it trivalised violent behaviour, gun crime and knife crime.
Response: Adams Foods Ltd stated the ad was not intended to cause harm, offense or potentially dangerous imitations by children. They said that it was intended to portray a surreal situation with a miniature cowboy talking in a very serious tone about cheddar cheese and that the razor and gun had deliberately oversized to emphasise the sense of surrealism.
They pointed out that the cowboy had used the razor correctly and was not shown doing anything untoward with it or using it in an inappropriate way.
Adams Foods also said that the gun scene was clearly intended to be humourous because the cat was almost double the size of the cowboy. They did not believe that the scene was irresponsible given that films, such as westerns, were shown at any time of the day and frequently showed guns being fired and people being injured or even killed by them.
Action: The ASA stated that Adams Foods immediately reschedule the showing of the ad before the watershed.
21) Kabuto Noodles "Improvised Ad Break - Scenario 3"
Date: 26th February 2014
Number of complaints: 5
Reason: Four people complained that the ad was offensive, because it mocked other cultures and races. One person complained that the ad promotes discriminatory behaviour and treatment.
Response: Kabuto Foods Ltd said that they did not intend to for the ad to be seen as racist or offensive. They said that the ad was an ironic gesture towards their own identity.
They also said that the style of sketch depicted in the ad was, in which a "foriegn language film" was acted out and badly translated, was a well-known staple of improvisational comedy.
As well as this, they also said that the sketch was more like a spoof of 1970's martial arts films rather than an attack on any Asian people or language.
Action: No further sanctions or action was taken.
22) Isuzu D-Max Blade Truck Zombie Ad
Date: 25th March 2015
Number of complaints: 7
Reason: All of the people complained that the ad was distressing and offensive, because it was excessively frightening and gory and was inappropriately placed where it could be seen by children.
Response: Isuzu (UK) Ltd stated that the 30-second long ad was used across all advertising formats. They said that they do not believe that ad's content was distressing, and highlighted that only by clicking on the ad, and therefore showing an interest in the content, would a viewer be taken through to the Isuzu.co.uk website to view the longer version of the ad.
The ad itself featured a scenario, that of a zombie-affected world, that was widely accepted as 'unreal' and so would never happen in real life and was something usually reserved for fictitious films.
They also stated that the ad campaign was timed to coincide with, and be relevant to, Halloween, a time when many advertisers look to tactical campaigns relevant to the theme of the widely celebrated annual event.
Action: The ASA ruled that the ad must never appear again in the same form. They stated that they have told Isuzu (UK) Ltd to carefully target their ads to avoid the risk of causing undue fear and distress to children.
They also stated that the ad campaign was timed to coincide with, and be relevant to, Halloween, a time when many advertisers look to tactical campaigns relevant to the theme of the widely celebrated annual event.
Action: The ASA ruled that the ad must never appear again in the same form. They stated that they have told Isuzu (UK) Ltd to carefully target their ads to avoid the risk of causing undue fear and distress to children.
The CAP Code and It's Main Categories
The CAP code is an abbreviation for the Central Advertising Practitioners. It is the code that the ASA enforces and it gives them the authority to sanction certain adverts.It is frequently kept up to date so as to make sure that the code complies with modern standards.
The CAP code is divided into various categories, each category for a corresponding topic of controversy or offence. These categories are as follows:
The ASA - Who are They and Why Do We Need Them?
The ASA is an abbreviation meaning the Advertising Standards Authority. They were set up in 1961 with the ultimate goal to make every advert in Britain responsible and to comply with certain guidelines. They have a five-stage strategy: understanding, support, impact, proactive and awareness.They are passionate about making advertisements harmless for people, community and society in Britain. Their job is to monitor any adverts that are of concern to the ASA organisation or to the general public. Any advert that fails to comply with ASA regulations, even after being warned and advised on how to make the advert less controversial, will receive sanctions.
The severity of these sanctions vary on how blatant the regulation violation is. A sanction can range from warning an advert to change certain content to telling programmes and channels not to show that specific ad.
The ASA is important because without it, any advert could contain anything, and be on every channel at any time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)