Ad description

Three press ads for a cancer charity, which featured text that stated "Today, 23 people will be told they have Pancreatic Cancer. Like [name], this is what they face: Only 3% will survive because of late diagnosis; Most will die within 4 to 6 months; It's the UK's 5th biggest cancer killer. Pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all 22 common cancers. Early diagnosis saves lives".

Each ad a featured a different image of a cancer patient and an accompanying statement shown in speech marks at the top of the ad. Ad (a) stated "I WISH I HAD BREAST CANCER". Ad (b) stated "I WISH I HAD TESTICULAR CANCER". Ad (c) stated "I WISH I HAD CERVICAL CANCER".

Issue

121 complainants objected to the ads.

The complainants, some of whom were cancer patients or knew someone who had suffered from cancer, objected that the references to other types of cancer implied that these were not serious or difficult to deal with. They felt that this was offensive and distressing.

Response

Pancreatic Cancer Action said the ads were no longer running and they had no intention of running them again. They said the campaign aimed to provide an insight to the general public into how it feels to be diagnosed with a disease that leaves you with no hope.

Pancreatic Cancer Action said while no one would want to have cancer, the wish to have another type of cancer with a higher survival rate was common in pancreatic cancer patients and their families, and the large quotation marks around the "I wish ..." statements highlighted that these were the words of real pancreatic cancer patients, including those featured in these ads. They said the survival rate for pancreatic cancer had remained at 3% for over 40 years and most people died within four to six months of diagnosis. Pancreatic Cancer Action stressed that neither they nor any of the patients featured in the campaign had ever suggested that the suffering of a pancreatic cancer patient was worse than that of breast, testicular or cervical cancer patients.

They did not believe the ads contained anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. They noted that the ads contained the facts that explained why someone might want another cancer and ended by stating that pancreatic cancer had the lowest survival rate of all 22 common cancers.

They believed some of the complaints were a result of people reading the headline in isolation without fully digesting the overall message of the ad, and said that often reproductions of the ad in press articles had not clearly shown the full copy so only the headline could be read, which could have led to misinterpretation.

Pancreatic Cancer Action said they had received hundreds of supportive messages directly through social media, e-mail and phone, but had received very few complaints despite continued widespread coverage, which they believed indicated that most upset was short-lived. .

Pancreatic Cancer Action said they did not take the decision to run the campaign lightly and, when preparing it, they conducted a survey and small scale qualitative and quantitative research, which did not suggest the campaign would be problematic. They also carried out in-depth interviews with people who had been directly affected by cancer and found the risk of the copy causing genuine offence was very low. They carried out a survey of over 2,000 people to see what they thought of the ads, which revealed that while 6% were angry, over 50% were made more aware of the issues and wanted to do more. Additionally, they said they had consulted CAP Copy Advice before publication.

Pancreatic Cancer Action said before launching the campaign, they informed three charities ‒ Breast Cancer Care, Jo's Trust (cervical) and Orchid Trust (testicular) ‒ about the campaign to provide them with an opportunity to prepare for feedback from their communities. They noted that Macmillan Cancer Support had published a statement of support on the launch of the campaign. Pancreatic Cancer Action explained that they had published blogs and statements throughout the campaign to explain why it was necessary and to make clear their belief that all cancer is awful and their wish that no one had to go through it. They also included helplines for those suffering from all cancers referenced in the ads. They provided examples of supportive comments they had received from those who had been affected by pancreatic, testicular, cervical or breast cancer.

The Metro said they had published the ad in good faith and had not received any direct complaints. They added that they had no intention of re-running the ad.

London Evening Standard also confirmed they had not received any direct complaints. They said context was important as this was not a case of a marketer using "shock" tactics gratuitously to sell a product and the ads did not include a request for donations. They said the ads were designed to raise awareness of this relatively little-known cancer, which, due to late diagnosis, currently had low survival rates in comparison with other cancers.

They said that cancer survival rates for the different forms of the disease were widely cited in the media, by cancer research charities as proof of the efficacy of their work or to highlight a perceived "neglected" area. Therefore they believed the fact that some cancers had a better survival rate than others was widely known and not in itself controversial or shocking to the vast majority of the public.

London Evening Standard considered the hard-hitting approach was justified to convey the ads' important message. They said the ads made clear that the subjects knew their form of cancer had a much lower survival rate in comparison with others. They noted that the wording of the ads put the headline into context and explained the message of the campaign. They said the reality known by the public and cancer sufferers was that some diagnoses were "less awful" than others and they considered that most, or indeed many, cancer patients would not consider the ads offensive.

London Evening Standard said cancer was not a taboo subject and believed the disease rather than the stark message of an advertising campaign would cause fear and distress. They said the only "eye-catching" tactics used in these ads were the stark headlines, which were clearly quotes from the people depicted. They said the reader was drawn to read on, to find out why someone might make those statements and noted that the accompanying facts were presented simply, without comment or any emotive language. They accepted that the ads were brutally frank, but not that they were offensive or, in context, distressing.

Assessment

Not Upheld

The ASA noted that the headline claims in the ads that seemed to compare different types of cancer were likely to be shocking and could potentially be upsetting, particularly for people who had experience of those types of cancer. However, we understood that the quotations reflected the genuine views of people who had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and noted that the text directly below the headline claims clarified what was meant by those claims. This text made clear that due to low early diagnosis and a lack of awareness of the symptoms of the disease, pancreatic cancer had the lowest survival rate of all common cancers and therefore the chances of survival with any other type of cancer were likely to be greater. We considered that this put the quotes referring to other types of cancer into context and that, when considered as a whole, the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or unjustifiable distress, and therefore the ads did not breach the Code.

We investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  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.
 and  4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention.  (Harm and offence), but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

4.1     4.2    


More on