Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
Two TV ads that appeared during Premier League Football matches on Sky:
a. A television ad for the video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, seen on 19 October and 20 October 2019, featured the PEGI 18 logo and a voiceover that stated “The rules of engagement have changed” immediately followed by various photo-realistic depictions of urban warfare; including gun fire, bomb blasts and resulting infernos, a scene showing a helicopter crashing, and numerous scenes of military vehicles and personnel discharging ammunition.
b. A television ad for the film 21 Bridges, seen on 2 November 2019, featured various scenes depicting gunfire, individuals wielding firearms, a scene where a car appeared to be trying to run over a pedestrian, and a scene showing what appeared to be a corpse, covered with tarpaulin.
Issue
The ASA received three complaints:
1. Two complainants, both of whom reported their children were distressed by ad (a), objected that the ad, which was for a PEGI 18 rated game, had been inappropriately scheduled during programmes when younger children were likely to see it.
2. One complainant challenged whether ad (b) had been inappropriately scheduled during a programme when younger children were likely to see it.
Response
1. Clearcast said as the game was certified PEGI 18 the ad was cleared with a scheduling restriction, ensuring it was scheduled away from programming commissioned for, principally directed at, or likely to appeal to children under 16 years of age. They considered the interpersonal violence shown was mild, and shots that featured firearms and explosions were short in duration and lacked distress.
Additionally, the ad did not show the consequences of any violence, for example with dead bodies or bloody injuries. They felt this was in-line with other ads for games with mild, computer-generated action and was not deserving of a higher timing restriction which they said would have been more suitable for ads with strong interpersonal contact and visuals of bloody injuries. SKY UK Ltd said they agreed with the scheduling restrictions imposed by Clearcast. They provided evidence showing the index scores for the relevant matches and stated that they felt an upheld ruling would be disproportionate as it would prevent broadcasters scheduling ads for action films or videogames in sports coverage that attracted a majority adult audience.
Activision Blizzard UK Ltd said they felt that as the ads were not scheduled during content principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children, Sky had complied with the relevant Clearcast restrictions and so the ads were therefore appropriately scheduled.
2. Clearcast said they had approved ad (b) with an ex-kids restriction due to the depictions of gun violence, brief shot of a covered up dead body, and general violent tone and that was in line with the ex-kids restriction the ad would automatically receive for being a trailer for a film that was certified 15. They said the scenes featuring violence were brief and not graphic. They also said there were no scenes in which any consequences of violence were depicted, and so they felt an ex-kids rating was sufficient.
Sky said they felt the scheduling restrictions imposed by Clearcast were reflective of the ad’s content. They provided data showing that the index score for the match around which the ad was shown was 56. They believed that this low index figure was due to the fact that Premier League programming was not commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 16 for the purposes of the BCAP rules. STX Entertainment UK Ltd) had no comments on the complaint.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the ads contained scenes of a violent nature, including scenes of guns being discharged, bomb blasts, and a helicopter crashing into a building. While each of those scenes was fleeting and did not glamorise the violence depicted, we considered the content of the ad was unsuitable for younger children. Consequently, we considered the ex-kids scheduling restriction applied by Clearcast was appropriate, and that the ad should not have been scheduled in or around programmes which were likely to be of particular appeal to children, as required by the BCAP Code.
We understood that the relevant Premier League Football matches were neither commissioned for, nor principally directed at children, and we therefore assessed the evidence in respect of whether it was likely to be of particular appeal to children. Broadcasters needed to use relevant audience data when making scheduling decisions, and where possible, the data should relate to the same or similar programmes that had previously appeared on the same channel during the same part of the day.
We assessed the BARB data for the matches, which showed an index figure for the relevant matches on 19 and 20 October 2019 of 28 and 49, respectively. We acknowledged that one ad had been shown around 18:00 and the other around 16:00 on the relevant dates, which were times that children were very likely to be at home and watching television, especially since a number of matches were shown at the weekend. However, the data showed that children made up only a small proportion of the programme’s audience, and we did not consider the programme itself was likely to be of particular appeal to children. In light of that, we understood that children did not make up a high proportion of the audience for the programmes, and consequently considered that the ads had not been scheduled for broadcast during programmes that would have particular appeal to children.
We therefore concluded that the ads had not been inappropriately scheduled. On that point we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules
5.1
5.1
Advertisements that are suitable for older children but could distress younger children must be sensitively scheduled (see Section 32: Scheduling).
(Children),
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.
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 of television and radio advertisements), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the ad contained scenes of a violent nature, including scenes of guns and gunfire, and a scene of what appeared to be a body covered in tarpaulin at a crime scene. While each of those scenes was fleeting and they did not show the consequences of violence, and did not glamorise the violence depicted, we considered the content of the ad was unsuitable for younger children. Consequently, we considered the ex-kids scheduling restriction applied by Clearcast was appropriate, and that the ad should not have been scheduled in or around programmes which were likely to be of particular appeal to children, as required by the BCAP Code.
We understood that the relevant Premier League match, and the Premier League series, was neither commissioned for, nor principally directed at children, and we therefore assessed the evidence in respect of whether it was likely to be of particular appeal to children. Broadcasters needed to use relevant audience data when making scheduling decisions, and where possible, the data should relate to the same or similar programmes that had previously appeared on the same channel during the same part of the day. We assessed the BARB data for the programme, which showed that younger children made up a small proportion of the audience for the relevant Premier League matches. We acknowledged that the ad had been shown around 17:00, and meant that children were likely to be at home watching television. However, the data showed that children made up only a small proportion of the programme’s audience, and we did not consider the programmes themselves, owning to their content, were likely to be of particular appeal to children. In light of that, we understood that children did not make up a high proportion of the audience for the programme, and consequently considered that the ad had not been scheduled for broadcast during a programme that would have particular appeal to children.
We therefore concluded that the ad had not been inappropriately scheduled. On that point we investigated ad (b) under BCAP Code rules
5.1
5.1
Advertisements that are suitable for older children but could distress younger children must be sensitively scheduled (see Section 32: Scheduling).
(Children),
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.
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 of television and radio advertisements), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
