Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld for ads (a)?(d) and ad (f).
Ad description
Three national newspaper ads, one paid-for Twitter post, and three outdoor posters for Tesco Mobile:
a. The first full-page newspaper ad in the Daily Express and in the Daily Mail, seen on 21 February 2022.The page featured text which stated, “What a load of shiitake” in large text, followed by an image of a mushroom. Underneath that, text stated, “The big mobile networks are raising your bills again. Join us for prices that stay fixed.”
b. The paid-for Twitter post, seen in February 2022, stated, “What a load of shiit” in large text, with an image of a mushroom next to it. The mushroom then rolled away to reveal the text “shiitake”, replacing “shiit”. Underneath that, text stated, “Did you know the big mobile networks are raising your bills?”
c. The first digital outdoor poster, seen in February 2022 in New Malden and Comberton Hill, contained the same text as ad (b).
d. The second full-page newspaper ad in the Daily Express and in the Daily Mail, seen on 21 February 2022, featured text which stated, “They’re taking the pistachio” in large text, followed by an image of a nut. Underneath that, text stated, “You might have heard the big mobile networks are raising your bills. Again. Which means you could lose an average of £107. Like you haven’t got enough on your plate. With the tax rises. The energy rises. The pretty-much-everything-else rises. At Tesco Mobile, we think you deserve better. Which is why, for another year, we won’t be raising our prices during your contract. Join us for prices that stay fixed.”
e. The third full-page newspaper ad in the Daily Express and in the Daily Mail, seen on 21 February 2022, featured text which stated, “For fettuccine’s sake” in large text, followed by an image of pasta. Underneath this, text stated, “You could lose an average of £107 thanks to the big mobile networks raising your bills again. Join us for prices that stay fixed.”
f. The second digital outdoor poster, seen in February 2022 in Ealing, stated, “For F”, followed by three images of pasta, and the text “sake”. The three images of pasta then rolled away to reveal the text “For fettuccine’s sake”. Underneath that, text stated “The big mobile networks are raising your bills again. Join us for prices that stay fixed.”
Issue
The ASA received 52 complaints:
1. Some complainants challenged whether the ads were offensive because the words “shiitake”, “pistachio”, and “fettucine” alluded to an expletive.
2. Some complainants challenged whether the ads were inappropriate for display where they could be seen by children.
Response
1. & 2. Tesco Mobile Ltd said that they had reviewed the CAP Code and did not believe that the ads were in breach. They said that they had not used any offensive words or imagery and, as such, believed the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. Tesco Mobile said that they prepared the ads with consumers in mind who were facing increasing prices due to the cost-of-living crisis, since the ads highlighted that they were not increasing prices, unlike other providers.
Tesco also said that when they were made aware that one of their publishers was uncomfortable running some of the copy, they had conducted a further internal review of the ads in accordance with the CAP Code. They concluded that the ads were not in breach of the Code.
JC Decaux said, prior to publishing the ads, they had contacted the CAP Copy Advice team, who believed the references to expletives would likely be in breach of the CAP Code. Whilst JC Decaux did not share that advice with Tesco Mobile directly, they made their agency aware of the Copy Advice team’s recommendation. JC Decaux also apologised for the unsuitability and offence caused by this campaign and said they would ensure that it would not be repeated, by re-addressing internal process over the coming weeks.
Clear Channel said that they posted thousands of ads each year and it was therefore a requirement of their general terms and conditions that an advertiser is responsible for compliance with all relevant CAP Codes. They also confirmed that they had not received any complaints directly.
The Daily Express said that whilst it was clear that the words “shiitake”, “pistachio”, and “fettucine” alluded to expletives, they believed that was not as offensive as using the expletives themselves. They also noted that the words were spelt correctly, for example “pistachio” rather than “pisstachio”. The Daily Express also acknowledged that whilst the allusions were intended to be humorous, that humour was subjective and needed to be gauged in light of its audience. They stated that 89% of the Daily Express’ readership was over the age of 35 years, and whilst that readership might not appreciate the same type of humour present in other titles, they understood the Daily Express’ readership did enjoy tongue in cheek humour such as that seen in the ads. They also stated that because of the nature of the Daily Express’ readership, the ads were unlikely to be seen by children. The Daily Express also noted several previous ASA rulings in which the ads featured words that alluded to expletives which had been ‘not upheld’. They also confirmed that they hadn’t received any complaints directly about the ads.
Associated Newspapers Ltd said that the ads were accepted for publication under its standard terms and conditions. It also confirmed that it had received two complaints directly.
Twitter confirmed that ad (b) ran as a paid-for ad, and that they had received no complaints directly about this ad.
Assessment
1. Upheld in relation to ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) only
The CAP Code stated that ads must not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
The ASA acknowledged that the words “shiitake”, “pistachio” and “fettucine” were relevant to the Tesco Mobile brand, and that the ads did not explicitly state the expletives “shit”, “piss” and “fuck”. However, we noted that the words “shiitake” and “pistachio” were closely linked to the expletives both phonetically and orthographically; when spoken, the expletives “shit” and “piss” were said, and when written, the words contained misspelt forms of the expletives. Therefore, we considered that many people would understand the word “shiitake” was used as an alternative to “shit” and alluded to the phrase “what a load of shit”. We also considered that many people would understand the word “pistachio” was used an alternative to “piss”, and alluded to the phrase “they’re taking the piss”. We considered that “shit” and “piss” were words so likely to offend that they should not generally be used or alluded to in advertising, regardless of whether they were used in a tongue-in-cheek manner. However, we considered that the word “fettucine” was not closely linked to the expletive “fuck”, as “fettucine” neither sounded like nor was spelt like the expletive, unlike “shiitake” and “pistachio” and their respective expletives. Therefore, we considered that many would accept that those ads containing that phrase were using a play on words to make a statement about pricing as part of Tesco’s marketing message.
We also considered the digital nature of ads (b), (c) and (f) and the way in which the words “shiitake” and “fettucine” were revealed during the ads. We noted that in ads (b) and (c) the word “shiit” was stated, before revealing the word “shiitake”. We considered that the word “shiit” was equivalent to using the expletive “shit” and this would be clear to most of those who saw ads (b) and (c). We did not consider that this perception would be lessened because an elongated spelling of the expletive was used. We also noted that in ad (f), the phrase “for f sake” was shown before the full word “fettucine” was revealed. Whilst we considered the word “fettucine” not to be closely linked to the expletive, we considered that people would interpret the phrase “for f sake” shown in ad (f), to allude specifically to the phrase “for fuck's sake”. We considered that “fuck” was a word so likely to offend that it should not generally be used or alluded to in advertising.
For those reasons we concluded that the allusion to the word “shit”, “piss” and “fuck” in ads (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) with a general adult audience were likely to cause serious and widespread offence. Whilst we recognised that some might find the wordplay distasteful, we concluded that ad (e) was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
On that point, ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) breached CAP (Edition 12) rule
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). We also investigated ad (e) under that rule, but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld in relation to ads (b), (c) and (f) only.
The ASA understood that ads (c) and (f) featured in billboard media on which no restrictions had been placed and that they were therefore viewable by a general audience, including children. Several complainants also identified that some posters had been placed in proximity to schools or bus stops regularly used by children. We also acknowledged that JC Decaux had consulted with the CAP Copy Advice team, whose view was that the references to expletives were likely to be considered a breach of the Code. Whilst we recognised that ad (b) would have a primarily adult audience on Twitter, we considered that it could still be seen by children and we had not seen any evidence of the ad having been targeted away from them. We also noted that ads (b), (c) and (f) showed a more obvious allusion to the expletive than ads (a), (d) and (e), before revealing the full words “shiitake” and “fettucine”. We considered it likely that parents would want their children to avoid these expletives, or obvious allusions to them.
However, we noted that the majority of readers of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express were adults. We also acknowledged those publications were not free and had to be actively purchased in a shop or by subscription. We therefore considered that children were unlikely to see ads (a), (d) and (e) featured in these newspapers.
For those reasons we concluded that ads (b), (c) and (f) were likely to be seen by children and were therefore inappropriate for display.
On that point ads (b), (c) and (f) breached CAP (Edition 12) rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social Responsibility). We also investigated ads (a), (d) and (e) under that rule, in respect of their appearance in the Daily Mail and Daily Express, but did not find them in breach in those publications.
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Tesco Mobile Ltd to avoid using words or phrases which were likely to cause serious offence by, for example, avoiding references to expletives. No further action necessary in respect of ad (e).
