Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
TV, VOD and social media ads for Gorillas, a grocery delivery service, seen in April 2022:
a. The TV ad featured a series of short scenes and accompanying commentary. It began with a man chopping lemons as the voiceover stated, “London loves acid”. The man smiled showing a lemon in his mouth. It continued with a voiceover that said, “Pints” as the ad showed the body of a pregnant woman eating ice cream from a tub; “Poppers” and showed an arm popping the cork off a bottle of champagne; “Hitting the bottle” as a baby was rocked in a chair drinking a bottle of milk, “Big buns” as buns were ejected from a toaster; “Milking it” as milk was poured into a cup of tea; “Getting smashed” and a woman mashed avocado in a bowl with a fork; “Double-dipping”, as a man dipped a crisp into two separate jars of sauce; “A bit of grind” while a man scrubbed a bathroom floor; “Blow” as a woman sneezed; “Getting wet” as a man showered and a second person’s arm cleaned his chest. The voiceover concluded, “But the grocery London loves most is bananas. Literally, you order absolutely loads of them, weirdos. Gorillas, whatever London wants.” The ad had on-screen text that said, “Gorillas. Whatever London Wants. Download the app”.
b. The VOD ad included the same content as ad (a).
c. The paid for TikTok ad included the text, “Too many bevs last night? Order groceries to recover fast or keep the party going”. An accompanying video showed a man talking into a camera who said, “So I just woke up. Slightly hungover. No food in the house. I’m going to order Gorillas. Going to get some eggs. Going to get some bread.” The man was shown looking into a grocery bag and he said, “There it is. Literally delivered in minutes. Eggs. Sourdough. A few beers obviously. If the hangover doesn’t go.” On-screen text said, “Gorillas. Faster than you. £20 OFF”.
d. The paid for Instagram ad had the same content as ad (c).
Issue
The ASA received 26 complaints:
1. Twenty-one complainants who believed that ads (a) and (b) made references to sex, drugs and excessive drinking, challenged whether the ads were offensive, and normalised and condoned drug use and therefore were irresponsible.
2. Two complainants challenged whether the content of ad (a) was inappropriate for children to see.
3. One complainant challenged whether ad (c) encouraged irresponsible drinking and was in breach of the rules on alcohol advertising.
4. One complainant challenged whether ad (c) had been inappropriately targeted.
5. One complainant challenged whether ad (d) suggested that alcohol could have a therapeutic function and was in breach of the rules on alcohol advertising.
6. The ASA challenged whether the references to alcohol in ads (a) and (b) encouraged excessive drinking and were in breach of the rules on alcohol advertising.
Response
1. Gorillas said that all customers who register on their app and use their service must be over 18 years of age and as such their advertising was aimed at and was appropriate for that age group. In addition, their ads reflected the wide range of products that their customers wanted to be delivered to their home.
While the ads featured double-entendres, the terms, when considered in context, were not offensive and just described the images being displayed. They did not consider the scenes to be graphic, inflammatory or offensive. They explained that the words used in the ad were sufficiently removed from an expletive, so that younger children would not understand the reference and older children would not be adversely affected by the content. They said the terms in this case would only be understood by those with the knowledge of the double meaning and even then they were not explicit enough to be considered offensive. They also understood that ads could be acceptable if suitable for the targeted demographic providing that an ad’s content was not sexually graphic or distressing. They believed sexually suggestive ads that used humour were acceptable when the whole context of the ad was assessed.
They said they did not condone illegal drugs or drug use but understood that a reference to drugs in advertising may be acceptable as long as the ad did not condone illegal, drug-related behaviour. They explained that the terms in their ad were light hearted and the images showed normal everyday life. The ads did not feature drugs or drug taking and were not intended to be seen as glorifying illegal or destructive drugs. As a grocery delivery service they were focused on advertising the range of products they offered.
They said that the references to “hitting the bottle” and “getting smashed”, while related to drinking alcohol, were stated over two clips that had no association with alcohol. One showed a father shaking a protein drink while watching their child drink from a bottle. The second showed a woman mashing an avocado in preparation for a meal.
Clearcast said the point of the campaign was to take well known phrases and present them literally using the products sold by the Gorillas’ delivery service. They explained it was a tongue-in-cheek approach that adults would understand but that children would miss.
They explained that they had advised Gorillas to avoid any content that was too suggestive and tone down any phrases that could be seen to have gone too far or caused offence. They took care to make sure the short clips and depictions in themselves were not offensive and were just a literal explanation of the well-known phrases in the voiceover. They gave the example of the phrase “hitting the bottle”. The accompanying video showed a father shaking a bottle of milk in preparation for feeding his child, rather than showing someone drinking alcohol. They believed by doing this they were not condoning irresponsible behaviour because the traditional context associated with those phrases had been taken away.
They believed the use of innocent visual explanations of the phrases in the ad, especially because they were humorous, made the innuendo and double-entendre approach acceptable.
2. Gorillas explained that the ad had a scheduling restriction, because it featured high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) products, and so was restricted from being seen around programming that had appeal to children and young people.
They stated that the TV show in which the ad was shown, was broadcast after 9 pm and audience index data showed that it did not have particular appeal to children.
Clearcast said that because the ad included HFSS products it therefore had a scheduling restriction and that prevented younger audiences seeing it.
3. Gorillas said that while Thomas appeared slightly hungover, they did not think that just because he ordered beer as part of his groceries, that the ad explicitly promoted or encouraged irresponsible or excessive drinking.
They said that the phrases “Too many bevs last night? Order groceries to recover fast or keep the party going” and “A few beers obviously. If the hangover doesn’t go” had alluded to drinking. However, they believed the phrases would be understood as tongue-in-cheek, especially when the ad was looked at as a whole. They said the text in the caption put equal emphasis on “recover fast” as well as continuing to party, and the latter option was not presented as the superior one. In addition, Thomas was not presented as under the influence of alcohol and was coherent and upbeat. While he was shown to be hungover, he did not look unwell and therefore any hangover was mild and the reference to it made by Thomas was in jest. The cans of lager shown in the bag were unopened and were part of a wider grocery shop. Thomas was not shown taking the beers out of the bag, opening or drinking them. They further said that the small quantity of beer shown did not suggest that Thomas ‘continued to party’ and any party was clearly over as Thomas was shown alone. The remainder of the groceries clearly implied that Thomas was going to make breakfast and was not going to continue to drink. The main message of the ad was the convenience of the Gorillas delivery service, rather than the promotion or glamorisation of excessive drinking.
They stated however that they were aware of how important it was not to encourage irresponsible drinking. Therefore they had removed the ad from all channels as soon as it was raised with them and did not intend to use it again. They were eager to ensure future influencer content complied with advertising rules and would ensure full oversight of third-party content in the future.They acknowledged that the Code looked to protect the young, immature and those who were mentally and socially vulnerable. They also acknowledged that their customers, who had to be over 18, may engage in casual drinking, and adults generally may drink to excess. However, their ads were not the cause of that; they believed their ad was a visual depiction of a shopping list, similar to placing alcohol on the shelves of a physical or online supermarket, and was targeted at those over the legal drinking age.
4. Gorillas said that to use their app a person had to be over 18. In addition, the app stated that if a person purchased alcohol, they would be asked for identification by the delivery driver. They explained because their customers had to be over 18, their advertising only targeted those over that age.
They provided audience data for their Facebook and Instagram accounts that showed the largest age groups following their accounts were the 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 age groups. They confirmed that TikTok did not provide figures for the age range of their subscribers. However, they only targeted their ads at those aged between 18 and 55 using targeting criteria on TikTok.
They explained that ad (c) was created by a third party, Thomas Straker, who they had collaborated with before. Thomas was a chef with his own social media content.
They said this was the only ad produced with Thomas that featured alcohol and Thomas was 32 years old. Due to his age and profession they did not think he would have appeal to under 18s. He clearly appeared older than 18 and as a chef working in London he would have appeal to young urban professionals.
They provided figures to show Thomas’ appeal on his own social media account. The figures showed that 1.5% of the followers were under 18 and his most popular demographic was 52.9%, for those 25 to 34 years old.
TikTok said that the ad was targeted to users aged 18 and above. However, the ad had been removed from their platform, because it violated their policy prohibiting the promotion of alcohol.
5. Gorillas said that the claim, “Order groceries to recover fast or keep the party going” would be understood by the average consumer to have referred to the non-alcoholic groceries that would have contributed to a good breakfast to allow Thomas to recover. It would not have been seen as referring to the alcohol or that beer could help with a hangover.
They added that the unopened beers appeared at the end of the ad, after all the other groceries had been taken out of the bag. Therefore, the claim, “A few beers obviously. If the hangover doesn’t go” would be understood to be sarcastic because it was clear he was more likely to make breakfast with the groceries, rather than the beers left unopened in the bag. They stated further that Thomas’ actions in the ad did not suggest he would continue drinking and the ad did not imply alcohol had therapeutic qualities because Thomas did not direct the audience to purchase or drink alcohol in order to feel better or alter their physical or emotional state.
6. Gorillas said the ad did feature one clip of a bottle of champagne, which could be bought via their service, but that was the only clip that showed alcohol. Although it featured the word “poppers”, this was not a reference to alcohol. The clip showed a small gathering and none of the individuals appeared under the influence of alcohol.They believed it was permissible for ads to feature one or more drinks without being interpreted as encouraging excessive drinking and pointed out that none of the characters were actually shown drinking. They believed the ad was unlikely to encourage viewers to drink to excess.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The BCAP and CAP Codes stated advertisements must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
The ASA noted that ads (a) and (b) made three references to drugs, specifically “London loves acid”, “Poppers” and “Blow”. We considered that the references to “blow” and “acid” would widely be understood as referring to illegal drugs. Poppers, while legal to purchase, could not be sold as products for human consumption.
We acknowledged that no drugs were shown in the ads and that the references were an attempt at humour, using food and drink examples to literally display the phrases. However, we understood that while the clips contained everyday products that Gorillas sold, the use or reference to drugs was not relevant to their service. In addition, by presenting drugs as a subject of humour, explicitly naming substances, when their consumption was illegal and they posed real dangers to the public, meant that the references would be seen to have encouraged apathy towards dangerous substances.
We noted that the ads made three references to alcohol, specifically “Pints”, “Hitting the bottle” and “Getting smashed”. We understood that “Pints” would be interpreted as a measurement or amount of alcohol. However, “Hitting the bottle” and “Getting smashed” would be understood as unhealthy or irresponsible behaviours related to alcohol.
We understood that Gorillas sold alcohol and therefore the reference to alcoholic drinks and amounts, such as “Pints”, was relevant to their service and was unlikely to cause offence. Regarding “Getting smashed” and “Hitting the bottle” we noted that the phrases were spoken alongside clips that did not feature alcohol products or images of excessive drinking. Nevertheless, the phrases referred to excessive and unhealthy drinking, and when presented in an uncritical and humorous way, condoned the abuse of alcohol.
We noted that the ads made several references that some would interpret as sexual. While we appreciated that some viewers might not have understood the double meaning for the terms “Double-dipping” and “Getting wet”, those who did would also understand them as explicitly sexual in nature with no relevance to the advertiser’s service.
We concluded that the ads were irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On that point, the ad breached CAP code rules
1.3
1.3
Advertisements must comply with the law and broadcasters must make that a condition of acceptance.
(Compliance) 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) and BCAP Code rules
1.2
1.2
Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society.
(Compliance) and
4.2
4.2
Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.
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.
(Harm and offence).
2. Upheld
We understood that ad (a) contained products that were classified as HFSS and so the TV ad had received a timing restriction that meant it could not be shown during programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to under-16 audiences. We noted the ad was broadcast after 9 pm around a programme that did not demonstrate particular appeal to under-16s. The number of children who were exposed to the ad was therefore limited.
However, because it featured content that made explicit references to alcohol, sex and drugs, which were likely to be seen as irresponsible and cause serious or widespread offence, it was unsuitable to be seen by any children, or audiences of any age.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 32.1 32.1 Broadcasters must exercise responsible judgement on the scheduling of advertisements and operate internal systems capable of identifying and avoiding unsuitable juxtapositions between advertising material and programmes, especially those that could distress or offend viewers or listeners. and 32.3 32.3 Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. (Scheduling).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must be socially responsible and must contain nothing that is likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that are unwise.
Thomas stated in ad (c) that he was “slightly hungover” and that he had ordered groceries that included beer. Text in the ad stated, “Too many bevs last night? Order groceries to recover fast or keep the party going”. In addition, Thomas said, in reference to the groceries he had bought, “…. a few beers obviously. If the hangover doesn’t go.” The overall implication of the ad was that if someone had drunk enough to be hungover, they had the option to recover by eating the groceries ordered or the alternative was to keep on drinking. While we acknowledged that the viewer was presented with two options, and neither one was presented as superior, we considered that the proposal to keep on drinking through a hangover advocated an unwise style of drinking and therefore the ad was socially irresponsible.
On that point, the ad breached CAP code rules 1.3 1.3 Advertisements must comply with the law and broadcasters must make that a condition of acceptance. (Compliance) and 18.1 18.1 Radio Central Copy Clearance – Radio broadcasters must ensure that advertisements subject to this section are centrally cleared. (Alcohol).
4. Upheld
We understood that TikTok did not allow ads for alcohol products to be served on the TikTok platform and this was made clear in the TikTok terms and conditions. The ad had, therefore, appeared in error and had been removed as soon as TikTok were notified by the ASA.Because alcohol advertising was not permitted on TikTok, the platform did not offer support to advertisers in accommodating or targeting it. It was not, therefore, responsible for Gorillas to have directed ads featuring alcohol through the TikTok platform.
On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 1.3 1.3 Advertisements must comply with the law and broadcasters must make that a condition of acceptance. (Compliance).
5. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not imply that alcohol has therapeutic qualities. Alcohol must not be portrayed as capable of changing mood, physical condition or behaviour or as a source of nourishment.
We noted that the character, Thomas, stated in ad (d) that he was “slightly hungover” and in response to the groceries he had bought said, “…. a few beers obviously. If the hangover doesn’t go.” We therefore considered that viewers would interpret the references as suggesting that the consumption of beer could assist with the feelings associated with over-drinking if a hangover persisted. The ad therefore implied that alcohol had therapeutic qualities by being capable of helping with a hangover, which was in breach of the rules on alcohol advertising.
On that point, the ad breached CAP code rules
1.3
1.3
Advertisements must comply with the law and broadcasters must make that a condition of acceptance.
(Compliance) and
18.7
18.7
Advertisements for lotteries which include any reference to scratchcards or online instant-win lottery products must not feature under-25s in a significant role. Other advertisements for lotteries must not feature under-25s in a significant role unless either:
(Alcohol).
6. Upheld
We understood Gorillas sold alcohol and therefore references to alcoholic drinks and amounts in ads (a) and (b), such as “Pints”, were relevant to their service. In addition, we noted that while the plural form of “Pints” was used, the ads did not specify an amount or state or imply an excessive amount of alcohol consumption. Therefore, the reference to “Pints” alone, with only an image of an adult eating ice cream, was acceptable.
In contrast we understood the terms “Hitting the bottle” and “Getting smashed” to be references to excessive or unhealthy relationships with alcohol. The ads, by using these phrases in a humorous way, therefore condoned and encouraged intemperate and immoderate drinking and so was irresponsible.
On that point, the ads breached CAP code rules
1.3
1.3
Advertisements must comply with the law and broadcasters must make that a condition of acceptance.
(Compliance),
18.1
18.1
Radio Central Copy Clearance – Radio broadcasters must ensure that advertisements subject to this section are centrally cleared.
(Alcohol), BCAP Code rule
1.2
1.2
Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society.
(Compliance) and
19.2
19.2
Advertisements must not feature, imply, condone or encourage irresponsible or immoderate drinking. That applies to both the amount of drink and the way drinking is portrayed.
References to, or suggestions of, buying repeat rounds of alcoholic drinks are not acceptable. That does not prevent, for example, someone buying a drink for each member of a group. It does, however, prevent any suggestion that other members of the group will buy a round.
(Alcohol).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Gorillas Technologies Ltd to ensure that future ads did not feature references to drugs, sex and excessive or unhealthy drinking that were likely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as irresponsible. They should ensure that ads did not imply alcohol can have therapeutic qualities or encourage an unwise style of drinking. Ads for restricted products should not be promoted on platforms that prohibit the advertising of such products.
BCAP Code
4.2 1.2 32.1 32.3 1.3 4.1 18.1 18.7 19.2
