Advertising Standards Authority

Advertising Standards Authority

1) The Advertising Standards Authority regulates advertisements in the UK across different media, to ensure that they are honouring the advertising codes.

2) The ASA observe advertisements to ensure that they do not offend the public. They receive complaints about advertisements that are misleading, offensive or harmful and they take the most appropriate action to resolve the issue.

3) They strive to confirm that advertisements are not misleading, that they are legal and decent as they feel this will benefit society and businesses as well as customers.

4) The ASA are funded by advertisers allowing them to maintain their independence. There is a tax on the cost of buying advertising space, and also on direct mail which is what funds their operations.

5) The key principles are that:

• Advertisements must abide by the laws of their respective countries.
• Advertisement should take care to avoid damaging public confidence in advertising.
• Adverts should not be misleading or deceptive.
• Advertisements should be made keeping in mind the responsibility toward both the customers, and society.
• Adverts must respect the principles of fair and free business competition.

6) Most television and radio adverts need to be pre-cleared before they can be broadcast, as this means they are complying with the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising. Pre-clearance reduces the risk of complaints.

7) The ASA only require one justified complaint before they begin to investigate an advertisement.

8) Advertisements that offend the public are controversial. Some of the things that can make and advert controversial include: sexism, racism, being inappropriate for children, being sexually inappropriate, animal cruelty, condoning violence, religion, being offensive to disabilities, featuring homosexuality, or being misleading.

Paddy Power – I think the ASA’s verdict was incorrect in this case as although it is light-hearted, I didn’t find it funny and can understand why people think it is insensitive. While I agree that this won’t promote cruelty to animals, I think it is offensive to blind people and it should have been pulled.

Marie Stopes – In this case I agree with the ASA’s decision as the advert doesn’t necessarily promote abortion, it promotes the organisation. After watching the advert I think its purpose is to inform people of the service they provide, and the advertisement does exactly that.

Department of Energy and Climate Change – With this advertisement, I feel that the ASA did the right thing in only upholding some of the complaints that were made. I think that this advertisement is misleading and scaremongering as did some other people, however I think this was done to make the advert more effective and get their message across.

Maritalaffair.co.uk – I think the ASA made the correct call in this case as there is nothing in the advert that is wrong or offensive, and their job is only to filter through the adverts and ensure they are appropriate, not to concern themselves with the nature of the product/service being advertised.

John Lewis – I think this advert does show animal cruelty/neglecting, and although it does not endorse this, I feel that the way this advert is shown may make children think that such behaviour is acceptable, and for that reason I do not agree with the ASA’s decision.

Oven Pride – I think this advert has a satirical and comedic take on gender stereotypes and there is no offensive content in the advert, which is why I agree with the ASA’s decision.

Irn-Bru – In agreement with many of the people that made complaints, I do believe this advert is distressing to children and fairly inappropriate for them, however Irn-Bru are not targeting children and the restriction in place should prevent children from being able to see it, so I think the ASA were right to let it stand.

Cardell Media – I think the ASA were right to act in this case as it was misleading, and untruthful.

Marmite – In this case, I think the content wasn’t directly offensive and was evidently done in a light-hearted way, despite the formal tone of the advert. I therefore agree with the decision to allow the advert and refer the complaints against the political aspects to Ofcom.

Durex – I think the ASA were right to let the advert remain but I think they should have done something about the timing, as an advertisement for condoms is something unsuitable for children to see, and it is being shown at a time when a lot of children watch TV.

9) 

Teleflora Super Bowl Advert

 

I think this advertisement is controversial because of a rude and abusive flower. The advert starts of slow, calm and neutral and then the flower begins to insult the woman. As a Super Bowl advert, it is seen by people of all ages and this rude and offensive behaviour is something inappropriate for children. I also think this advert will offend people with low self-confidence, and could make them feel even worse about themselves.

MasterCard: The Milkman

This advert came as a ridiculous shock to me when I first watched it. A seemingly peaceful and calm advertisement changes completely as the milkman begins to assault a man inside his own home, smiling whilst doing so. This advertisement could give kids the impression that this type of behaviour is acceptable, and the violent content is reason enough for this advertisement to be banned.

Volkswagen Polo: Small But Tough

The concept behind this advertisement was to show that this small vehicle is strong and can withstand an explosion, and I think they opted to use a suicide bomber to create humour. Their attempt failed miserably as terrorism is a very serious and sensitive issue and although some people can bring a lighter and more humorous side to it, such as ventriloquist Jeff Dunham with his puppet Achmed The Dead Terrorist, this advert could not pull it off, and the result was a poor and feeble attempt at creating a good humorous advert. This advert seems even more insensitive after the more recent vehicular suicide bombings in Iraq and Pakistan.

Ford Street KA: The KA’s Evil Twin 

I fail to understand the concept of this advertisement and can understand why it enraged animal rights activists. This advert takes you completely by surprise and horrific image of the vehicle strangling the cat is one that brought the wrath of animal rights activists. This advert is clearly inappropriate for children, and it seems as though it is encouraging cruelty towards animals.

Volkswagen: Don’t forget it’s a Diesel

This advert caused outrage amongst parents after showing little girls using the word “bollocks” over 6 times throughout the advert. This is offensive and inappropriate for children as they will see children on screen saying it and then start using the word themselves thinking that it is acceptable. Once again I fail to understand the concept, and the purpose of most of the content within the advert, and I think they just tried to create humour for adult viewers by seeing little kids using bad language, however the attempts failed as the avert was too controversial for television.

10) When making our own adverts, I think we need to believe in our concept, and what we want to show about our product. We have our niche target audience, and while we want to ensure the advertisement is appealing to them, we must make sure that we do not compromise the integrity of our adverts. We want to make sure it is effectively targeting out desired audience, however we must also be able to certify that it is suitable for the whole general public and that it doesn’t offend anyone. Great care must be taken to ensure that none of the content in our adverts can be taken as being sexist, racist, offensive to people with disabilities, inappropriate for children, condoning violence, or featuring any form of animal cruelty or homosexuality, as these are the things that can make adverts controversial. Finally, we must also make sure that our advertisements are persuasive, but not misleading, as the provision of incorrect product information is a crime.