Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated of which four were Not upheld and one was Upheld.
Ad description
Four TV ads and a VOD ad, for Just Cavalli, a perfume for women, featured a woman being pursued by a man. The woman made a number of statements, which were accompanied by on-screen text stating the same:
a. The first TV ad showed a woman removing her coat and stating, "Just Now". The woman, whilst facing the camera, unbuttoned her top and then stated, "Just Fun". The woman then threw her top at the man and was shown wearing a bra. The man was shown with a naked torso chasing the woman. The woman then stated "Just Me". The couple then ran into the bedroom and began to kiss. The ad then showed an image of the advertised product and the woman stated, "Just Cavalli. The new fragrance, just for her".
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction.
b. The second TV ad showed a woman removing her coat and stating, "Just Now". The woman was then shown removing her shirt to reveal her bra whilst stating, "Just Fun". She was then shown dancing before being pursued by the man. The woman then stated, "Just Free". The woman then unbuttoned her top and threw it at the man. She was shown wearing a bra. The man, who had a naked torso, was shown chasing the woman. The woman stated, "Just Lust" and then, "Just Touch". The ad showed the woman touching her lips and the man's hand resting on her thigh. The woman was then shown to spray the perfume on herself and state, "Just Me". The couple then ran into the bedroom and began to kiss. The ad then showed an image of the advertised product and the woman stated "Just Cavalli. The new fragrance, just for her."
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction.
c. The VOD ad was identical to ad (b) and was viewed before the programme Wild at Heart on ITV Player.
d. The third TV ad showed a woman removing her coat and stating, "Just Now". The woman was then shown being pursued by the man before removing her shirt to reveal her bra whilst stating, "Just Fun" She was then shown being pursued by the man, who had a naked torso. The woman then stated, "Just Me". She was then shown to push the man on to the bed before they embraced. The man was shown kissing the woman's arm and torso. The ad then showed an image of the advertised product and the woman stated, "Just Cavalli. The new fragrance, just for her".
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post 19:30 restriction.
e. The fourth TV ad showed a woman removing her coat and stating, "Just Now". The woman was then shown removing her shirt to reveal her bra whilst stating, "Just Fun". She was then shown dancing before being pursued by the man. The woman then stated, "Just Free". The woman then removed her top and threw it at the man. She was then shown wearing a bra. The man, who had a naked torso, was shown chasing the woman. The woman then stated, "Just Lust", before stating, "Just Touch". The ad showed the woman touching her lips and the man's hand resting on her thigh. She was then shown to push the man on to the bed. The woman was then shown to spray the perfume on herself and state, "Just Me". The couple were then shown to embrace and the man was shown kissing the woman's arm and torso. The ad then showed an image of the advertised product and the woman stated, "Just Cavalli. The new fragrance, just for her".
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post 19:30 restriction.
Issue
1. All viewers objected that the ads were offensive, because of the sexualised behaviour.
2. A number of viewers objected that ads (a) and (b) were inappropriately scheduled.
3. A number of viewers also objected that ads (d) and (e) were inappropriately scheduled.
4. One viewer challenged whether ad (c) was appropriate to be seen by children, because they viewed the ad before the programme Wild at Heart, which they considered a family programme.
5. One viewer challenged whether ad (a) was appropriate to be seen by children, because they viewed the ad during the programme New You've Been Framed, which they considered a family programme.
Response
1. Coty said the ads were intended to reflect the spirit and appeal of the fragrance and Just Cavalli brand. They said the Just Cavalli brand was created to celebrate the femininity and sensuality of women. They also said the ads did not include an explicit sexual scene, aside from the models kissing.
Clearcast pointed out that the ad was for a perfume. In that context, they believed the imagery was relevant to the advertised product and was intimate in nature, rather than sexualised. They therefore believed the ads were not likely to cause offence.
2. & 3. Coty said they created different versions of the ad to air at different times of the day. They believed the ads had been given the appropriate scheduling restrictions.
Clearcast believed an ex-kids restriction was appropriate for ads (a) and (b) due to the images of the woman in her bra and the brief scenes of the couple kissing. They believed a post 19:30 timing restriction was appropriate for ads (d) and (e) due to the scenes of the man kissing the woman's wrist and stomach.
4. Coty said the VOD ad was purchased with a media schedule that included no children's programmes.
ITV said the ad was given an L1S restriction under Clearcast VOD advice. They explained that that restriction required that the ad was not transmitted in the breaks immediately before and after children's programmes. They also said they restricted the ad from programmes of particular appeal to children based on a broadcast assessment under the 120 audience indexing mechanism.
5. ITV said the programme was not commissioned for, or targeted at, children. They said audience indexing data showed that the proportion of children aged 10‒15 years watching the programme did not exceed the threshold at which it was deemed to have particular appeal to children. They believed that was the appropriate measure against which to assess whether or not the ad was of particular appeal to children. They acknowledged that audience indexing data showed that the proportion of children aged 4‒9 and 4‒15 years exceeded the threshold of particular appeal to children.
ITV also explained that when scheduling the ad they took in to account a previous transmission of the same programme, which was broadcast at the same time of day as the ad referred to by the complainant. Based on that assessment, they considered the ad was suitable for broadcast during the programme.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted all ads showed the woman undressing to reveal her lingerie and that the man was shown with a naked torso. We also noted the ads showed the woman being pursued by the man and that there was a sexual tension between the couple. The ads did not, however, include any explicit nudity.
We noted the scene of the couple kissing in ads (a), (b) and (c) was brief in duration and considered the ads were mildly sexual in nature. Whilst we acknowledged that some viewers might find the ads distasteful, we considered, in the context of an ad for a perfume, the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
We considered ads (d) and (e) included stronger images than ads (a), (b) and (c). In particular, we noted the ads included an image of the woman with her crotch raised towards the man whilst he kissed her torso. We also noted the ads included short scenes of the couple passionately embracing and kissing. We considered those ads were moderately sexual in nature. Although we considered the ads were moderately sexual in nature and might therefore be distasteful to some, we considered that, in the context of an ad for a perfume, the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point, we investigated ads (a), (b), (d) and (e) under BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and offence) and ad (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 4.1 Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18. (Harm and offence), but did not find them to be in breach.
2. Not upheld
As noted in Point 1, we considered ads (a) and (b) were mildly sexual in nature. However, because the ads were scheduled with an ex-kids restriction, we considered the ads were appropriately scheduled to prevent them from being broadcast in or around children's programming. On that basis, we concluded the ads did not breach the Code on this point.
On this point, we investigated ads (a) and (b) under BCAP Code rule 32.3 32.3 Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. (Scheduling), but did not find them to be in breach.
3. Not upheld
As noted in Point 1, we considered ads (d) and (e) were moderately sexual in nature. We therefore considered the ads were not suitable for broadcast when young children might be watching. However, we noted the ads had been cleared by Clearcast with a post 19:30 restriction. We therefore concluded that the ads were appropriately scheduled and did not breach the Code on this point.
On this point, we investigated ads (d) and (e) under BCAP Code rule 32.3 32.3 Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. (Scheduling), but did not find them to be in breach.
4. Not upheld
We noted ITV applied the same timing restriction as had been applied to ad (b). We also understood ITV restricted the ad from programmes of particular appeal to children based on an assessment of whether the programme had been of particular appeal to children when broadcast on TV.
We sought audience indexing data for transmissions of Wild at Heart in the four weeks prior to the transmission of the ad, which had been challenged by the complainant. The data for transmissions during that period showed that the programme did not hold strong appeal with children. We considered the same programme on VOD would also not hold strong appeal with children. We considered the measures implemented were responsible and appropriate to minimise the risk of children seeing the ad. On that basis, we concluded the ad did not breach the Code.
On this point, we investigated ad (c) under BCAP Code rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility) and 4.1 4.1 Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18. (Harm and offence), but did not find it to be in breach.
5. Upheld
We noted ad (a) had been given an ex-kids restriction to prevent it from being broadcast in or around children's programming. We understood that that included programmes which had a high index of children viewers.
The Code required that broadcasters exercised responsible judgement on the scheduling of ads and operated internal systems to avoid unsuitable juxtapositions between ads and programmes.
We considered You've Been Framed!, New You've Been Framed! and Funniest Ever You've Been Framed! were similar programmes and would be viewed as such by members of the public. We therefore sought audience indexing data for transmissions of those programmes in the four weeks prior to the transmission of the ad, which had been challenged by the complainant.
We considered it appropriate to review transmissions of those programmes between 15:00 and 21:00 on weekdays, because this was a time when children would be out of school and would have the opportunity to view the programmes. The data showed that in 26% of the transmissions during those times, the programmes were viewed by a significant number of children. We also considered transmissions of those programmes on Saturdays in the four-week period. The data showed that in 26% of the transmissions during those times, the programmes were viewed by a significant number of children. We also considered transmissions of those programmes at weekend during the four-week period. The data showed that in 25% of the transmissions during those times, the programmes were viewed by a significant number of children. We therefore considered the audience indexing data showed a significant number of instances where the programme had been viewed by a significant number of children.
We understood that when scheduling the ad, referred to by the complainant, ITV considered a previous transmission of the same programme, during the same time slot the previous week. However, because audience indexing data from the four weeks prior to the transmission of the ad indicated that the programme had been viewed by a significant number of children, we were concerned that ITV had not taken steps to prevent the ad appearing around such programmes.
On that basis, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On this point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rule 32.1 (Scheduling).
Action
No further action necessary in respect of issues 1 to 4. We told ITV to take more care with the scheduling of ads in future.
