In a competitive marketplace, there’s a fine line between creatively drawing attention to your product or service and inadvertently causing harm and offence.
Ads 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. They should not condone anti-social behaviour or cause fear or distress, unless there is a clearly justifiable reason to do so.
Let’s take a look at some of this year’s ASA rulings which explore themes of harm and offence.
Be afraid of causing fear and distress
In July, the ASA considered whether an ad for a water filter caused fear and distress without justifiable reason. The ad was seen in the context of a public health event in Devon, after a parasite that could cause a diarrhoeal disease was found in the area’s water supply. The ad stated, “100 people have fallen ill in Devon now”, “protect yourself” and “stay safe”. The ad also stated that “every home in the UK needs a water filter”.
The ASA understood the contamination was temporary and contained to the affected area. They, therefore, considered that the ad exaggerated the health risks of UK drinking water and exploited people’s fears that tap water across the UK was unsafe to drink.
They concluded the ad would likely cause fear and distress that was not justified, and complaints were upheld on that basis.
Don’t take the p*ss by condoning anti-social behaviour
That’s right, I said p*ss. It’s an on-topic word (see below for more on offensive language) and illustrative of a recent ruling on an ad for a water bottle company, which showed a man urinating into a lake in a park. The ad also showed a woman walking past carrying a child and a man shovelling snow.
A voiceover stated, “[take] your water intake to new levels…we solved daily hydration for this guy, the side effects…we couldn’t solve this, but he’ll take care of that…”.
The ASA acknowledged that the ad was intended to highlight the consequences of drinking more water in a humorous way. However, they noted that the scenario took place in a real-world setting and depicted a male prominently and publicly urinating in a park, appearing comfortable with his actions which – whilst not depicted – implied his genitalia was exposed and potentially visible to others.
They, therefore, considered that by trivialising the act of public urination, the ad condoned anti-social behaviour, was irresponsible and breached the Code on this point.
Watch your language
Whether the language used in ads is likely to cause serious or widespread offence will depend on the medium and context in which they appear, and factors such as tone. Some expletives are unlikely to be acceptable to use.
Earlier in the year, the ASA considered complaints about a poster from a cancer charity which included an image of a woman’s torso and text which said “Cancer won’t be the last thing that f*cks me”.
The ASA considered that viewers were likely to understand “f*cks” as an allusion to “fuck”, a word so likely to offend that it should not generally be used in ads - even if viewers would understand that the ads were intended to raise awareness of women’s experience with cancer.
They concluded the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence and was therefore inappropriate for display in an untargeted medium where it could be seen by children.
Getting it right
It is worth taking the time to ensure that context, medium and audience are all taken into account when producing advertising to avoid causing serious or widespread offence and harm.
You should also consider who your audience is likely to be and take action where necessary to ensure that your advertising is correctly targeted.
Need more advice?
If you’d like some further advice please see our guidance, and if you need bespoke advice on your non-broadcast ads, our Copy Advice team are here to help.
More on
-
Keep up to date
Sign up to our rulings, newsletters and emargoed access for Press. Subscribe now.
