Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and one was Upheld in part.
Ad description
Poster and press ads for Brewdog Beer seen in August 2020:
a. The poster, seen outside Fulham Boys’ School, Camden Town Centre and Chiswick in London, in Northumberland Street, Newcastle upon Tyne and in George Square, Glasgow, featured large text taking up the whole ad which stated “F**k You CO2. Brewdog Beer Is Now Carbon Negative”. The letters between F and K were obscured by a can of Brewdog Punk IPA.
b. The press ad, a full or double-page ad seen in The Metro, The Week and The Economist, was identical to the poster.
Issue
The complainants challenged whether the text “F**k You” was offensive and inappropriate for display in a medium where it could be seen by children in the:
1. outdoor poster; and
2. press and magazine ads.
Response
1. & 2. BrewDog plc said they had wanted to shock people into thinking about the planet and reducing and removing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. They said the billboard hosts and media print titles were aligned with their objectives and message and that The Economist, The Week and Metro recognised that the message would be understood by their readers and were happy to run the ad. They said every media placement and poster site had been approved by the media owner or landlord and that every poster site had been planned in accordance with guidelines on proximity to schools and religious buildings as advised by Outsmart.
BrewDog said they had consulted a broader range of outdoor contractors and had consulted with them on the campaign and its environmental message versus the potential for offence. They said the campaign had run at a time when schools were closed for the summer holidays and so any exposure to the ad by children going to or from school would have been limited. BrewDog said the ads implied a swear word but that it was not explicitly stated, which they believed followed precedent of what was acceptable. They did not believe the message would have caused harm or offence.
Metro said they had believed the ad was suitable for their readers because 98% of them were over 18 years of age. They said one in two Metro readers said humorous content made for good advertising and that 75% of Metro readers were concerned about the environment. No complaints had been made directly to them. The Week said they considered the ad with the obscured text to be in line with their editorial policy and was unlikely to be inappropriate for their readers, whom they considered to be intelligent and curious. They said the average age of their readers was 52 years and that 96% of them received the magazine via subscription.
The Economist said they had considered the ad with their editorial team before publishing it. They said there was no ban on swearwords in The Economist, but they did not use them often. They acknowledged that some readers might find the ad distasteful, but did not consider it would be offensive or harmful to either adults or children. They said The Economist was not targeted at children and did not knowingly sell subscriptions to customers under 18 years of age. They said that while it was possible that some children might have access to the magazine, those who would read it were likely to be teenagers and therefore unlikely to find the ad offensive. They had received one complaint made directly to them on grounds of taste. City Outdoor noted that the word was obscured. They said they had asked Newcastle City Council for their view on running the ad on the Northumberland Street screen.
Newcastle City Council considered the content to be acceptable. City Outdoor took from that, that other local councils would have a similar view. They said there were relatively few people passing by because of the Coronavirus situation.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that the poster showed an obscured version of the word “Fuck”; that it had been placed in accordance with guidelines on proximity to schools and religious buildings; that the ad had run during school summer holidays and that one local authority (Newcastle City Council) had been asked and considered the ad acceptable for use. Nevertheless, we considered it would be clear to most of those who saw it that the ad referred to the word “Fuck” in the context of the expression “Fuck you” and was making a pun, in reference to the impact of climate change.
We considered the word “Fuck” was so likely to offend a general audience that such a reference should not appear in media where it was viewable by such an audience.
We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence and was not appropriate for display in untargeted media. On that point the ad breached 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
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: age; disability; gender; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. 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).
2. Upheld (in respect of Metro only)
We acknowledged that most readers of Metro were adult. We considered that many would accept that the ad was using a play on words to make a statement about environmental issues as part of its marketing message. Nevertheless, as a widely available, free newspaper, the ad was untargeted. Although the ad intended to use a pun to get its message across, we considered it would be clear to most readers that it referred to the word “Fuck”, a word that was likely to be considered unacceptable by many readers in untargeted media. We also considered the expression the ad referred to “Fuck you” ? was likely to be associated with an aggressive tone.
We concluded therefore that the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence in Metro and was not appropriate for use in that publication.
We considered, however, that an obscured version of the word “Fuck” reflected similar use of language elsewhere in The Week and The Economist and, in light of the ad’s intended message, was not out of place. We also acknowledged these publications were not free and had to be actively purchased in a shop or by subscription. While some readers might have found it distasteful, we considered it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence in those publications.
On that point the ad breached 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
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: age; disability; gender; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. 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) in respect of its appearance in Metro. We investigated the ad 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
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: age; disability; gender; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. 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) in respect of its appearance in The Week and The Economist, but did not find it in breach in those publications.
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of unless suitably targeted. We told BrewDog to ensure they avoided causing serious or widespread offence by, for example, avoiding references to expletives in media targeted to a general audience. No further action necessary in respect of the ad appearing in The Week or The Economist.
