ASA Adjudication on Sony Computer Entertainment UK Ltd

Ad

Four TV ads, featuring game footage, for the ‘Heavy Rain’ video game. Ad (a) was shown in the beginning of the ad break followed by alternative conclusions to the story in ads (b), (c) and (d) later in the same ad break.

a. The first ad showed a shop keeper being threatened by an armed man. A customer was shown watching the incident unfold.

b. The second ad showed the watching customer choosing to “Intervene” in the situation and was shown wrestling the armed robber and being shot by the armed robber.

c. The third ad showed the customer choosing to “Attack” the armed robber and was shown hitting him over the head with a glass bottle.

d. The fourth ad showed the customer choosing to “Negotiate” with the robber and was shown to calm the situation down and the robber left the shop.

Ads (a), (b) and (d) were given a post 19:30 scheduling restriction by Clearcast and ad (c) was given a post 21:00 restriction.

Issue

1. Several viewers believed that all four ads were inappropriate for scheduling at times when they could be seen by children.

2. Several viewers objected that the depiction of violence in all four ads was offensive.

3. Several viewers objected that all four ads were harmful because they glamorised violence.

4. Some viewers objected that the ads were offensive, because they were broadcast at the time of the death of a shop keeper in Huddersfield in an armed robbery.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

1., 2. & 3.

Sony explained that the ads were based on the content and storyline of the game Heavy Rain and were in no way intended to glamorise violence. Sony emphasised that all four ads were subject to scheduling restrictions that were deemed appropriate for their content.

Clearcast explained that all ads were given enhanced scheduling restrictions of post 19:30 and ad (c) a later restriction of post 21:00. They considered that these restrictions were appropriate to prevent the ads from being shown around childrens programming and were sufficient given the ads content.

4. Sony explained that it was unfortunate that the ads appeared around the same time as the death of a shopkeeper in Huddersfield. Clearcast went on to state that the event could not have been foreseen and emphasised that it was difficult for advertisers and broadcasters to anticipate such events when scheduling ads in advance.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that ads (a), (b) and (d) had been given post 19:30 restrictions and that ad (c) had been given a post 21:00 restriction. We considered that these were sufficient to prevent the ads from being broadcast around childrens programming or when a high number of younger children were likely to be watching. We also noted the characters in the ads were obviously digital animations and considered that children who did see the ads would not believe the characters were real. We therefore considered that the ads had been scheduled appropriately and that the restrictions were sufficient for the ads content.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Code rules 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children), but did not find the ad in breach.

2. & 3. Not upheld

We noted the ads featured alternate endings of a sequence where a bystander could chose how to intervene in a threatening situation. We understood that this was used to demonstrate the interactivity possible with the game, in contrast with games with more structured, linear, narratives. We also noted that the protagonist of the game was a bystander and was not shown actively seeking to perpetrate violent or threatening behaviour. We considered that the scenarios featured in the ads were likely to be viewed as associated with the fictional narrative of the game and the action within it, rather than as real violent situations.

We acknowledged that some viewers might object to the theme of the game and the inclusion of violent imagery per se. However, we concluded that the ad itself was unlikely to be seen to be encouraging or glamorising violence in a harmful way, or to be likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.2 (Violence and cruelty) and 7.4.1 (Mental harm), but did not find the ad in breach.

4. Not upheld

We understood the broadcast of the ads coincided with tragic events in Huddersfield, and we accepted that that may have been upsetting to those directly affected by the incident and similar events of robbery. However, we considered that the ad was likely to be viewed by most people within its context of an ad for a videogame, rather than as a reference to or comment on a current news event, and would therefore expect to see footage that was representative of the games genre. We therefore concluded that, although the timing of the broadcast was unfortunate, it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence on those grounds.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), but did not find the ad in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)