The ASA upheld complaints against advertisers from the food, beauty and alcohol advertising sectors this month for failing to market in a socially responsible way because of focus on children. At first blush, the ASA’s apparently tougher line seems to flow from the high profile Bailey report and Mothers’ Union response focusing on inappropriate marketing to children. But on closer examination, the truth may be slightly different; in each of 3 high profile cases this month, the advertisers produced flawed defences. So, brands suffered a double hit in terms of reputational damage; not only did they face the naming and shaming process and the expensive withdrawal of advertising, their image may have been scarred more than would have been the case because of the manner of the defence.
A TV ad for Morrison Supermarket promoted packs of free-with-purchase Disney collector-cards, also carrying the chance of a hidden, winning golden card for a Disney holiday. The ad had to be pulled because it encouraged kids to ask their parents to shop at Morrison. The ad didn’t need to show a child asking a parent to take them – it was enough that this was implicit. Morrison argued that the ad couldn’t be said to encourage children to ask parents to buy products, because it focused on adults by featuring the weekly supermarket shop and parental strategies for keeping kids entertained. However, the Code is clear and the ASA’s implementation of it, consistent: an ad will target children if anything in it is likely to be of interest to children. So Morrison appeared to argue that the chance of collectable Disney cards and a Disney holiday weren’t of any interest to children, clearly a far from realistic position to take and one which may well have caused further loss of face.
A magazine ad for Oh Lola!, Coty UK’s “Marc Jacobs” perfume brand, faced an upheld complaint for featuring Dakota Fanning, a 17 year old model, reclining whilst holding the perfume. The bottle was over-sized, the dress only thigh length and the bottle held between the legs. The complaint was unsurprisingly upheld. But some will feel that Coty lost more credibility by the manner of its response. Whilst conceding that the bottle was provocative, Coty still maintained that the styling in the ad did not suggest the model was underage or that the ad was inappropriately sexualised for the reason that it “did not show any private body parts or sexual activity", thereby apparently denying the possibility that sexualisation can be implicit and needn’t be overt.
A TV ad for Kopparberg cider was also pulled for being socially irresponsible and, specifically, being "likely to appeal strongly to people under 18". This ad was also implicit rather than overt. Amongst other things, the ad showed the dance floor of a club and exhorted "FIND THE CROWD WHO THINK EVERY NIGHT IS FRIDAY NIGHT". We feel it's fair to say that the ASA decision might have been different had the advertiser not had to defend the fact that the featured music played over the ad was a track called “Kids” played by a young band of particular appeal to under 18s and not just older people.
Knowing how to manage the ASA’s expectations is critical for brand-advertisers to understand, if they are to avoid the embarrassment and reputational damage resulting from being named and shamed for socially irresponsible marketing.
For further information please contact Ian Down on 0207 355 6116 or e-mail: idown@hamlins.co.uk