Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
Ads promoted the soft drink IRN-BRU.
a. A TV ad featured a mother cleaning the kitchen as her son and two friends walked in. They greeted each other and the son looked shocked. The mum looked at her cleavage and said "New push up bra. Amazing eh?" The son's friends stared at her breasts as her son looked on with a shocked expression. The son then took a loud sip of IRN-BRU, smiled and said, "Looking good mum". His friends continued to watch her as she leaned forward to clean the table. The son appeared disconcerted, then took another sip and smiled at his mum. The mother then embraced her son against her chest. He looked uncomfortable, then drank more IRN-BRU and then smiled. The mother asked "Group hug?" and the friends jumped from their chairs enthusiastically, pushing each other. The final scene showed the drink in front of two balloons with text stating "IRN-BRU" and "GETS YOU THROUGH."
b. The same ad appeared on the IRN-BRU YouTube channel, the AOL website before a news bulletin and on a Video on Demand (VOD) service (STV).
Issue
176complaints were received. Most complaints related to ad (a) and four related to ad (b).
1. Most complainants challenged whether the ads were offensive and irresponsible, because they considered that the scenario between the mother and young men was sexual and inappropriate.
2. Some complainants challenged whether the ads were sexist and demeaning to women.
3. Some viewers challenged whether ad (a) was inappropriately scheduled at a time when children could have been viewing.
Response
1. AG Barr plc (AG Barr) stated that the premise of the campaign was using IRN-BRU to cope with awkward situations and the ads under investigation dealt with how parents could unwittingly embarrass their teenage children. AG Barr said they had been conscious that the ads should stay true to the traditionally cheeky and irreverent sense of humour of IRN-BRU ads, but should not objectify women, carry any tone of a sexual nature or cause offence. They said they did not consider that the scene between the mum and young men was sexual or inappropriate and felt there was no lasciviousness or flirting between the mum and the boys. They stated that the friends were simply reacting to the mum's new clothing in the way you would expect them to and that the mum was completely oblivious to the reaction she was drawing from her son's friends. They said the central focus of the ad was the son's embarrassment and the comedic and surreal concept that IRN-BRU would help him deal with such an awkward situation, and that humour relied on the mum's innocence. They added that the young men were not reacting in a way that portrayed sexuality, nor were they colluding in a salacious fashion, but were rather transfixed by the mum's appearance. They said all three male actors were aged 19 to 21 years.
They considered that the mum was dressed in a way which did not display a gratuitous amount of cleavage, this they felt reinforced the lack of sexual undertone and pointed out that the mum was very matter of fact when she delivered the line "New push up bra - amazing, eh?". They said the line was delivered as a straightforward observation about the new addition to her wardrobe, in the same way she would announce that she was wearing new shoes, and, similarly, the delivery of the line "Group hug?" was also in a light-hearted and friendly tone with no hint of flirtation.
Clearcast said that IRN-BRU's advertising was based on a particular kind of quirky humour and the brand had built up a reputation for that approach in Scotland, to the extent that Clearcast considered viewers took that into consideration when viewing IRN-BRU ads. Clearcast said they had approved the TV ad (ad (a)) on the proviso that the boys were over 18 and with a timing restriction. They said the advertisers and agency had not wanted the TV ad to be sexual or gratuitous, as the main point of the story was the son overcoming his awkwardness by drinking IRN-BRU, which was a recurring theme in their advertising. Clearcast said they had worked closely with the agency to ensure that the story was cheeky, but inoffensive. They did not consider that the ad would cause widespread offence.
STV said they took their compliance responsibilities very seriously. Although the advertiser had primary responsibility for ensuring that VOD ads complied with the CAP Code, they stated that STV ensured that VOD ads complied and maintained robust procedures for the placement of ads on their ODPS ("STVPlayer"), whereby the advertiser, or their appointed agents, had to ensure that the ad complied with the CAP Code and submit a copy of Clearcast's advice or CAP Copy Advice (where available). They had received advice from Clearcast in relation to the VOD ad, which set out Clearcast's view that the ad was advised as "ok for VoD". STV considered the ad's content was unlikely to cause physical or moral detriment to persons under the age of 18, nor seriously impair them, and was therefore considered suitable for STV viewers. They said Clearcast had advised schedule restrictions around children's programmes, because the ad was for an HFSS (high in fats, salt and sugar) product, but the ad was also not considered to be a risk of serious harm to children. They said it was not transmitted on STVPlayer around children's programmes. They said STV had received three complaints relating to the ad.
Google stated that the ad had been uploaded to IRN-BRU's YouTube channel and was also promoted as an ad through TrueView InStream and InSearch campaigns. They said the VOD ad did not violate YouTube's advertising policies. They stated that advertisers had to ensure that their ads complied with any applicable laws and advertising regulations that might pertain to their marketing campaigns.
AOL said they carried out a general review of the ads they showed, but relied on advertisers to ensure their ads were responsible.
2. AG Barr said their casting process had taken great care to present a normal, down-to-earth mum and to not create a stereotype of a woman that could be sexualised in any way. They said the mum was presented in a benign, homely environment and was confident and in control of her situation. They said she was totally unaware of any sexuality because, to her, there simply wasn't any and she remained oblivious to the effect she had on her son's friends and on her son.
Clearcast did not consider the ad was sexist. They said the mum was in control of the situation and was not demeaned by it. She was pleased with the way she looked and felt, as a result of her push-up bra. They said that, whilst the son's friends were portrayed as enjoying the effects, they were not portrayed as superior and came across as somewhat gormless.
3. AG Barr said ad (a) had not appeared in programmes for, or likely to have particular appeal to, children. They reiterated that the ad was scripted and executed in a matter of fact, 'day in the life' manner, without any lasciviousness or sexual undertones. They said the ad conveyed the core thought of IRN-BRU's long-running campaign, namely, that that drink helped the son through a situation that was far more awkward for him than his mum or his friends.
Clearcast said they considered the timing restriction carefully and appropriately. As IRN-BRU was an HFSS product, ad (a) could not be transmitted around programmes directed at, or likely to appeal to, under 16s, but they considered that an 'ex kids' timing restriction was sufficient for the ad.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the characters in the ads were all adults who were over the age of consent. We considered that the action in the ads did not rely on the mum actively or overtly flirting with her son's friends in a manner designed to actively sexually attract them or form a sexual relationship with them, but was focused on the son's embarrassment that his friends were showing an attraction to his mother, whilst she behaved as if she was unaware of the effect her manner of dress and actions were having on those around her. Although we acknowledged that some behaviour, such as the mum's offer of a "group hug", might suggest that she was conscious of the effect her manner of dress was having on the group, we considered that the purpose of her actions was to form the basis of the humour in the ads, which was driven by the surreal notion that the son's embarrassment could be countered by drinking IRN-BRU. We therefore considered that most viewers would interpret the situation as surreal and using tongue in cheek humour, rather than as depicting realistic and sexually inappropriate behaviour on the part of the mum.
Although we noted that some complainants had interpreted the action in the ads as portraying an inappropriate relationship between the mum and the son's friends, we did not consider that their interaction was a portrayal of irresponsible behaviour. Therefore, although we acknowledged that some viewers had found the ads' humour distasteful, we did not consider that the ads portrayed irresponsible behaviour, nor that they were likely to cause serious or widespread offence. We therefore concluded that the ads were not in breach of the Code.
We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 1.2 1.2 Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society. (Responsible advertising), 4.1 4.1 Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18. and 4.2 4.2 Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Responsible advertising) 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 in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted that the ads featured a woman with large breasts who was wearing a low cut top and push-up bra and involved her son's friends displaying an attraction to her appearance. We also noted that the basis of the humour and action drew particular attention to her appearance and her breasts. However, we considered that the action relied on the mum being confident and attractive, but not consciously or overtly behaving in a sexualised or flirtatious way. We also considered that the focus of the ads was the son's embarrassment at the effect his mum's appearance was having on his friends. The humour was based on the surreal notion of using IRN-BRU to counter that embarrassment. Therefore, and particularly in the context of ads intended to portray a surreal and light-hearted comedic approach, we did not consider that the action or depiction of the female protagonist was sexist or demeaning and concluded that the ads were not in breach of the Code.
We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 1.2 1.2 Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society. (Responsible advertising), 4.1 4.1 Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18. and 4.2 4.2 Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Responsible advertising) 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 in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted that ad (a) was subject to an 'ex kids' restriction which prevented the ads from being broadcast in or around programmes directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children. Although we considered that younger children would be unlikely to understand the basis of the humour and innuendo used in the ad, we did not consider that the content was overtly sexualised or was inappropriate to be seen by children, particularly when watching with adults. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 1.2 1.2 Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society. (Responsible advertising), 4.1 4.1 Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18. and 4.2 4.2 Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
