Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which two were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
a. An online video ad promoted the Isuzu D-Max Blade truck. It appeared as a banner ad on various websites, including the advertiser's own. It depicted the truck as the hero in a zombie infested city.
b. The same video appeared as an in-game ad that appeared in the app 'Scrabble Free'.
Issue
The ASA received seven complaints.
1. All of the complainants challenged whether the content was distressing and offensive, because it was excessively gory and frightening.
2. Four of the complainants challenged whether ad (a) had been irresponsibly placed where it could be seen by children.
3. Three of the complainants challenged whether ad (b) had been irresponsibly placed in an app that could be played by children.
Response
1. Isuzu (UK) Ltd stated that the 30-second ad was used across all their advertising formats. They did not believe the content to be distressing, and highlighted that only by clicking on the ad, and therefore showing an interest in the content, would a viewer be taken through to the Isuzu.co.uk website to view the longer version of the ad. The ad itself featured a scenario − that of a zombie-affected world − that was widely accepted as ‘unreal’ and so would never happen in real-life and was something usually reserved for fictitious films.
They also stated that the campaign was timed to coincide with, and be relevant to, Halloween, a time when many advertisers looked to tactical campaigns relevant to the theme of a widely celebrated annual event. Therefore, they believed the ad had wider contextual relevance to the time of year, i.e. one where consumers were more expectant of advertising with a Halloween theme. It was also designed and targeted to a male audience, who they believed were most likely to find the content entertaining. The ad was not put on any broadcast channels and was instead only served in a tightly controlled online display campaign, which normally guaranteed that only a single user − given how most online consumption happened in an individualistic manner − would see the advert.
2. Isuzu said the targeting of their campaign was based on demographic and behavioural targeting, particularly males over 18 years of age, with an interest in cars. That meant that a user who fit the profile of their desired target audience, as determined by their dominant browsing behaviour, would be served the ad whenever they arrived on a site that fell within their chosen media owner’s network. They said contextual placement, i.e. the content around the ad, became somewhat irrelevant as they knew that regardless of the site, it was the right type of consumer that was going to view the ad. Nonetheless, there were safety restrictions put in place by the networks that meant the advert would not be shown in an environment or a website that was very clearly one for children, even if an adult that fit their user profile decided to go and look at a specific children’s website.
They acknowledged that their targeting method could not mitigate against scenarios such as if a child were to gain access via an adult’s device to the same browsing session as an adult, and if the child were to then visit a site that was not overtly designed for children. Within the constraints and safety measures put in place by digital networks, which were widely accepted and used on a daily basis by thousands of large UK advertisers and accepted by the industry, Isuzu stated that it was highly unlikely that a child would have been served the ad through the targeting method used.
Exponential Interactive Inc, the network that served ads on several of the sites seen by the complainants, confirmed that the campaign was targeted at audiences who were likely to respond to the creative (males of 18 years of age and above, and with an interest in cars). They acknowledged that when an entire family used a single PC, a cookie (used to record browsing history) was an imprecise way of identifying a single individual. However, they hoped that in those circumstances parents would be proactive in clearing cookies or opting out of behavioural targeting via the Ad Choices icon. They also highlighted that they did not work with child-focused sites, so did not expect to mistakenly show an ad designed for adult sensibilities in an environment designed for children. They confirmed that three of the sites that the ad had appeared on were all categorised as sites for teens or adults, and had a negligible child audience and provided data in support of that.
Xe.com Inc, who were responsible for Xe.com, a currency converter site where the ad had been viewed, stated that Exponential managed all the advertising content that was shown on their site. They were not aware of any direct complaints from the users of their site. However, upon receipt of the complaint, they had blocked the ad from appearing in future.
Barnes & Noble Inc, who were responsible for Sparknotes.com, a revision/study aid site for teenagers, stated that they had several categories blocked for brands and content which they believed to be inappropriate. The ‘car’ category was not blocked, as advertising from such companies were generally very appropriate. They noted that the ad was created for Halloween, since it appeared around that time of year. They confirmed that Exponential was the ad network that served the ad and explained that they did not see the creative that came from the network before it was served. They only blocked inappropriate content once it was live, or a category/brand ahead of time.
East Midlands Newspapers Ltd, who were responsible for the online newspaper bostonstandard.co.uk, where the ad had been viewed, did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
3. Isuzu explained that even when appearing in an app, the ad would only be served to those users whose dominant browsing behaviour indicated they were an adult male. They said the serving of the ad in an app used the exact same targeting parameters as on site advertising, and while the app might have been applicable for ages four and above, the ad would only have been served to their target audience.
Electronic Arts Ltd, who were responsible for the Scrabble Free app in the UK, said they had entered into an agreement with a third-party representative to sell ad inventory in the UK. That agreement prohibited the third party from serving restricted content within Electronic Arts’ games, including any violent content, content that was in breach of any applicable laws, rules or regulations and content that was specifically restricted or blocked by Electronic Arts by written notice to the third party.
In practice, they said car ads were typically identified as being suitable for all ages and were usually benign. Unfortunately, the Isuzu ad in question was an anomaly and they agreed it was not suitable for a young audience. Due to an oversight, the ad had been included in Electronic Arts games’ ad inventory in error, and contrary to the terms of Electronic Arts’ agreement with the third party. They had taken immediate steps to ensure the ad would not appear within any Electronic Arts games, and their third-party partner had removed it from their schedules for all Electronic Arts games. They did not have any knowledge of any complaints made directly to Electronic Arts in relation to the ad.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the ad featured a number of zombies that were injured and covered in blood. We noted that while the main protagonist, within the Isuzu truck, was surprised and unsettled by the sudden appearance of zombies, his reaction was measured and he was not shown to be in immediate danger. Similarly, while a woman featured in the ad was shown to be trapped on the roof of a car trying to fend off a group of zombie attackers, we considered it was clear from the man’s reaction that he intended to save her. While we acknowledged that some viewers might find the ad unpleasant and unsettling, and that the it would need to be targeted carefully to ensure it was not seen by young and early teenage children, who could be distressed and upset by its content, we concluded that it was not overly graphic, violent or threatening, and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
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 race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. 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.
and
4.2
4.2
Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention.
(Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
As stated under point 1, we considered that the content of the ad could distress young and early teenage children, and therefore needed to be targeted carefully. We noted that the ad was targeted at users who were identified, through their browsing behaviour, to be male, over 18, and interested in cars. We understood, however, that such targeting could not mitigate the possibility of a child sharing a device, and the same browsing session, with an adult, and therefore seeing the ad during that session. While we appreciated that parents or guardians could take action to minimise that risk by deleting their browsing history or opting out of behavioural advertising, we considered that many parents would not necessarily be aware of such targeting methods or the steps they could take to avoid being served targeted ads. We understood that the network did not serve ads on any sites that were predominantly aimed at children and so the ad would not have appeared on sites of particular appeal to children, even if the device’s browsing history indicated that the user was an adult male. We were concerned, however, that the ad could nonetheless appear on sites regularly used by children. We noted from the data provided that sparknotes.com was visited by a large number of individuals aged between the ages of 13 and 17, and that, depending on who else shared the same device, children visiting the site could have been served the ad.
In light of that risk, and because the way the ad was targeted it could not take into account the possibility of a child and adult sharing the same browsing session, we considered that Isuzu had not taken the necessary precautions to mitigate the risk of a child viewing the ad, such as ensuring the ad did not appear on sites regularly used by children.
Despite the targeting steps taken by the advertiser, because the ad appeared on a website regularly used by young teenagers, we concluded that it had been irresponsibly targeted.
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 4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention. (Harm and offence).
3. Upheld
We understood that the ad was targeted to app users depending on their browsing history, and so would only be shown in-app to those who appeared to be over the age of 18. We noted, however, that the app was deemed to be suitable for those aged four and over, and that parents might allow a child to play with the app believing that the content, including all in-app advertising, would be suitable for that age range. In particular, we considered that a parent who might not usually allow a child to browse the internet independently on a device, might be more inclined to allow them to play an age-appropriate app. Therefore, we were concerned that an adult and child could share a device within the same browsing session, and the child could have been served the ad while playing Scrabble Free.
In light of that risk, and because the way the ad was targeted it could not take into account the possibility of a child sharing a device with an adult, we considered that Isuzu had not taken the necessary precautions to mitigate the risk of a child viewing the ad, such as ensuring the ad did not appear in apps with a low age rating.
Despite the targeting steps taken by the advertiser, because the ad appeared in an app which was rated suitable for children, we concluded that it had been irresponsibly targeted.
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 4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention. (Harm and offence).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Isuzu (UK) Ltd to carefully target their ads to avoid the risk of causing undue fear and distress to children.
