Ad description
Five posters by Nottingham City Council seen in May and June 2016: -
a. One poster featured a close-up image of a person smoking a roll-up cigarette, with text that stated "BEGGING: WATCH YOUR MONEY GO UP IN SMOKE Begging funds the misuse of drugs #givesmart".
b. One poster featured an image of a homeless man in a sleeping bag begging, with text that stated "BEGGING: WATCH YOUR MONEY GO TO A FRAUD Beggars aren't what they seem #givesmart".
c. One poster featured an image of a discarded lager can, with text that stated "BEGGING: WATCH YOUR MONEY GO DOWN THE DRAIN Begging funds the misuse of alcohol".
d. One poster featured an image of a discarded lager can, with text that stated “IT’S YOUR CHOICE: GIVE MONEY TO SOMEONE BEGGING AND FEED A HARMFUL ADDICTION … OR GIVE TO A CHARITY WHICH PROVIDES TREATMENT AND SUPPORT. Find out how www.endingalcoholharm.co.uk”.
e. One poster featured an image of discarded syringes, with text that stated “PEOPLE WHO BEG OFTEN HAVE SERIOUS DRUG OR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS. PLEASE GIVE TO A CHARITY, NOT TO PEOPLE BEGGING. Find out how www.endingdrugharm.co.uk”.
Issue
Seven complainants, who believed that the ads portrayed homeless people in a derogatory manner and implied that all homeless people were engaged in criminal and anti-social behaviour, challenged whether the ads were likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
Response
Nottingham City Council stated that the posters were not about, and did not refer to, homelessness. They said the campaign's clearly stated objective was to discourage members of the public from giving money to people who begged, almost none of whom were homeless, as it was likely that the money would fund drug or alcohol addictions, which in many cases could be life-threatening. They urged anyone who wanted to help genuinely homeless people to donate to charities for the homeless. The campaign was developed in response to the public's views that in recent years begging was becoming an increasing problem locally, there was a need to tackle the issues faced by people who begged, and also to deal with what was a criminal activity under the Vagrancy Act 1824. They acknowledged that the posters had a 'hard-hitting' message, but one which they considered as necessary in order to effectively convey a vital message.
Nottingham City Council referred to a blogpost published by a local charity for the homeless, which they believed supported the objective of their campaign and the assertion that most people who begged in Nottingham were not sleeping rough and did not need to do so. The blogpost commented that homelessness and rough sleeping were not the same as begging and the conflation of the two did not help combat either. The blogpost also observed that those who begged in Nottingham faced issues such as poor housing, substance abuse, mental health illness and a lack of opportunity. The blog stated that while beggars were not underserving of help, they required specialist support from charities and direct cash donations did little to help find long-term solutions.
Nottingham City Council also referred to a report by the same charity, which found that in the 12 months up to April 2016, 181 of 189 individuals who were witnessed to have engaged in street drinking and/or begging had identified support needs for alcohol and/or substance misuse, and nine had passed away. Further, a recent survey carried out by Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership found that begging was the anti-social behaviour issue that local residents were most concerned about, with 31% of residents saying it was a very or fairly big problem. In a 2015 survey, 11 businesses claimed that they suffered disruption due to begging either on a daily basis or most days of the week.
Nottingham City Council also provided three case studies which they said were examples of the harassment and disruption those who begged could cause and demonstrated the clear link between begging and drug or alcohol abuse.
Nottingham City Council did not believe that the ads reinforced negative stereotypes. They believed that the ads reflected reality and gave an accurate picture of what would happen to the cash donations given to beggars – the money given would largely be spent on alcohol and drugs.
Assessment
Upheld in relation to ads (a) – (d) only
The ASA considered that the headlines in ads (a) and (c) – "WATCH YOUR MONEY GO UP IN SMOKE" and "WATCH YOUR MONEY GO DOWN THE DRAIN" – particularly the use of "go up in smoke" or "go down the drain" which were often used to describe something to waste or disappearing in an instant, implied that any donations given to beggars would be spent in a wasteful way or for irresponsible means. Further, we noted the language used in the accompanying claims "Begging funds the misuse of drugs" and "Begging funds the misuse of alcohol" was absolute in nature, and which we considered reinforced the implication that those who begged would use donations to fund harmful activities. We further noted that ad (b) referred to the depicted man as a "fraud" and stated that "Beggars aren't what they seem", and considered that it implied that individuals who begged, and appeared to be homeless, had dishonest intentions to deceive members of the public for cash donations. Whilst ads (a), (b) and (c) featured the hashtag "#givesmart", which advised members of the public to be vigilant about donating to beggars and suggested there might be alternative way to provide support to them, we considered the overall impression of ads (a), (b) and (c), created by the combination of the elements above, was that all those who begged were disingenuous and used donations for irresponsible purposes.
We noted that ad (d) included the wording "… or give to a charity which provides treatment and support" which encouraged members of the public to donate to charity as an alternative to donating to beggars directly, and suggested charities were better placed to provide support to those who begged. Nevertheless, we noted that the preceding text "It's your choice: give money to someone begging and feed a harmful addiction", was definitive in nature and considered that overall, ad (d) suggested that all beggars would spend cash donations received irresponsibly to fund their drug or substance addiction.
We understood from the information provided that the issue of aggressive begging was an increasing concern within Nottingham city centre. We also noted the objective of the ads was to encourage members of the public to donate to charities, which would be better placed to provide support and treatments to help those who begged, and who often had severe drug or alcohol addiction and/or faced other issues. However, notwithstanding Nottingham City Council's view that the ads related specifically to begging, rather than homelessness, and that the strong tone of the ads was justified, we considered that for the reasons discussed above, ads (a) – (d) portrayed all beggars as disingenuous and undeserving individuals that would use direct donations for irresponsible means. We further considered the ads reinforced negative stereotypes of a group of individuals, most of whom were likely to be considered as vulnerable, who faced a multitude of issues and required specialist support. On that basis, we concluded ads (a) – (d) were likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
In respect of ad (e), we noted that the language used in the text "People who beg often have serious drug or alcohol problems. Please give to charity, not to people begging" was conditional and objective in tone. We considered that it was likely to convey the overall message that a number of individuals who begged were also likely to face complex problems and have potentially life-threatening addictions and would therefore be better supported by charities, rather than direct cash donations. We therefore concluded that ad (e) was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
Ads (a) - (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
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.
(Harm and offence). We investigated ad (e) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
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.
(Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ads (a) – (d) must not appear in their current forms again. We told Nottingham City Council to ensure that future ads did not portray those who begged in a manner that was likely to cause widespread or serious offence.
