Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Although they only account for a small part of the ASA’s work, complaints about taste and decency are often the most high-profile. Upheld decisions can result in widespread adverse publicity for the company concerned and marketers can be required to have posters pre-vetted by CAP’s Copy Advice team for two years if they publish an offensive poster.
Rule 4.1 states that marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence, and specifies that special care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age. Marketers referencing or depicting any of these characteristics in their ads should read CAP’s specific guidance on these; Offence: Sexual orientation and gender identity, Offence: Sex, Offence: Age - ASA | CAP, Offence: Racism, Offence: Disability, Offence: Religion and belief.
Complaints have also been upheld about ads on the grounds of offence due to their depiction of stereotypes, Sexualisation or objectification, depiction of death, the use of language and depiction of nudity, amongst other things.
Compliance with this rule is judged based on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Context
Marketers who wish to refer to current or emotive news stories in their marketing should take particular care over how such stories are used, if they are to avoid accusations of exploitation or shock tactics.
An ad for cars which appeared shortly after the Black Lives Matter protests and during a public debate about racism in the UK stated “BLACK CARS MATTER. I ASKED HOLLY FOR A HEADLINE FOR THIS A4…AND SHE SAID: ‘ONCE YOU GO BLACK, YOU NEVER GO BACK!’”. The ad featured an image of a black raised hand with a wristband displaying the Audi logo alongside an image of a black Audi. Text stated “AUDI A4 BLACK POWER EDITION”. Further text stated "MANUAL GEARBOX (BIG GEARKNOB)”. The ASA said that using references to anti-racism protests to promote an unrelated product meant the ad was likely to cause serious offence on the grounds of race and was irresponsible and offensive.
Complaints about an ad for a life insurance company referring to the serial murderer Harold Shipman that included the claims “Life insurance to die for” and “Because you never know who your doctor might be” were upheld in 2023. The ASA ruled that the ad caused offence and distress because it trivialised the murders committed by Harold Shipman (DeadHappy Ltd, 15 February 2023).
It is possible for advertisers to refer to current events or emotive subjects without causing offence. The ASA considered complaints that ads promoting a toiletry brand were irresponsible and distressing, in particular to those affected by insecurities about their body image or those affected by an eating disorder. The ads told the story of the impact of social media posts on a young woman suffering from an eating disorder. The ASA noted that the ads highlighted the potential harm social media could cause to young people by promoting unhealthy and unrealistic body ideals, partly through showing re-created content that could encourage behaviours associated with eating disorders. It concluded that the ads did not breach the Code because, although the subject matter could be difficult for members of the wider public to watch, the context of the overall message of raising awareness and promoting support, was likely to be understood (Unilever UK Ltd, 8 November 2023).
Medium and audience
When determining whether an ad is likely to cause serious or widespread offence, the ASA will take into account the medium in which the ad has appeared. What is acceptable in magazines with a relevant audience might not be acceptable on posters that are untargeted. Marketers can go some way towards avoiding causing serious or widespread offence by ensuring that they target ads appropriately.
The ASA upheld complaints that one of the images used in a campaign for underwear was overtly sexual because of the posture and facial expression of the model and the nudity in the ad. It ruled that the image should not appear in untargeted media (Calvin Klein Inc, 6 March 2024) Similarly, the sexual references implied in “IT’S A GOOD DAY TO GET SOME HEAD” and “DON’T PLAY WITH MY EMOTION, PLAY WITH MY” followed by a cartoon image of a clamshell in ads for a dating app, meant that they were not suitable for advertising on posters (Online Classifieds AG, 12 June 2024
An ad for a TV series featuring explicit sexual references and swearing was shown before an animal video on Facts Machine YouTube channel. Although the advertiser had used targeting exclusions and keywords to ensure that the ad did not appear around content of interest to children, these steps had proven insufficient. The ASA concluded that because the ad appeared before a video likely to appeal to children, it had been inappropriately targeted. In addition to that, in the context and media in which it had appeared, the ad was likely to cause serious offence. (Paramount UK Partnership, 29 June 2022).Marketers should be mindful that, although careful targeting can help to avoid causing offence, some ads are unlikely to be acceptable in any media.
See Targeting
Product
Rule 4.1 recognises that some people might be offended by the product being advertised, irrespective of the nature of the ad itself. Whilst ads for some products, such as adult services, condoms and erotic literature will be likely to generate complaints, the Code allows for legal products to be advertised and will consider whether the content of the ad breaches the Code.
In 2023/24 the ASA considered three complaints about ads showing models and influencers on OnlyFans, a website featuring adult content. Two of the three were upheld on the grounds that the ads were offensive and irresponsible because the images they contained were overtly sexual and displayed in an untargeted medium where they had the potential to be seen by a large number of people, including children (Em Rose, 3 January 2024 and Rebecca Louise, 21 February 2024). Complaints about the third ad were not upheld, with the ASA acknowledging that, although the image of Ms Watson and reference to OnlyFans might be distasteful to some, because the ad was not overtly sexual and did not objectify women, it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. (Eliza Rose Watson, 23 August 2023)
Charity advertising
The ASA has tended to allow charities a little more leeway than commercial companies when using material which might otherwise be considered offensive, in order to publicise their cause.
Complaints that an ad for a dementia charity was distressing to those affected by the condition were not upheld; the ASA took the view that any distress caused was justified by the ads’ messages (Alzheimer's Society, 5 June 2024).
However, it ruled against a poster ad for a cancer charity headlined “CANCER WON’T BE THE LAST THING THAT F*CKS ME” saying that “fuck” was a word so likely to offend that it should not generally be used or alluded to in advertising, even if viewers would understand that the ads were intended to raise awareness of women’s experience with cancer. In addition, the image in the ad was sufficiently sexually explicit to be likely to offend (GIRLvsCANCER, 10 January 2024).
See also Offence: Language - ASA | CAP
The ASA also ruled that the offence and distress caused by the emotive language and gory imagery in an ad for a vegan charity was unjustified (Viva!, 6 September 2023).
Marketers who are unsure if an ad is likely to cause serious or widespread offence are encouraged to contact CAP’s Copy Advice team.