ASA Research Task

‘ASA’ stands for Advertising Standards Authority and the company/organisation is responsible for the content of adverts and make sure that the adverts are no misleading, harmful or offensive. There are 5 key principles advertising codes:

Understanding: This also can act purposefully and be fair and balancedSupport: They would also support the advertisers so they can help create responsible adverts. The company would increase their information so that every business would have access to the support it needs.Impact: The Company would make sure that they will spend time on matters which would affect a lot of the consumers.Proactive: The Company will work with others and tackle problems in the adverts so the consumers are happy. Awareness: The Company would make sure that the public will know who they are and know what they do. It would also give the public the confidence in the ‘ASA’ work.

The ‘ASA’ protect children from unsuitable content for 24 hours. All advertisers in the UK are responsible to follow the ‘Advertising Codes’ which required to address the audience which are children with content that will cause no physical harm, mental or moral harm. The company has also joined forces with other media regulators which create ‘ParentPort’. ‘ParentPort’ is a website which make it easier for parents to understand what the organisation have to follow across media. It would also help parents find to provide feedback or a complaint.

ASA protect children with ads across the UK with all media including:

TV RADIO MAGAZINES EMAIL

1st Case Study

WEBSITES NEWSPAPERS POSTERS

The date is 17th March 2010 and the company is called ‘Department of Energy and Climate. There was 939 complaints made about this advert. The centre of complaint was that the advert had been misleading because it had a human persuade climate change when it was not really happening. It had claimed that 40% of the CO2 was coming for everyday things.

The advert shows a man reading a book to his daughter about the CO2 levels rising which caused strange weather such as floods and in some other areas the lands had awful heat waves. The advert also uses facts and figures to make it sound more believable for the audience watching. The audience cuts from the cartoon of what is happening in the book to a reaction shot of the daughter as she listen to her dad read the story. The advert also makes the adults sound band as it shows adults using hairdryers and the CO2 from it floats up to the CO2 monster cloud. You constantly show the dad and Daughter as the Dad reads the book. This makes the situation seem true as you could believe that a dad would read to his daughter. When you get a close up of the daughter asking the dad if it has a happy ending you would know that the book has really affected the child.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDthR9RH0gw

The main issues of the complaints where:

It was also a political ad which should not have been broadcasted. The advert should not be shown when the children were likely to watch the television The advert also exaggerated possible effects such as the strange weather and flooding in the

UK. They had used imagery which were very misleading and dramatic. For example: A dog was drowning while a cat was reaching out to save it.

The advertising codes the advert broke was that before they can distribute or submit marketing communication they must hold documentary evidence to prove all of their claims. They must also make sure not to claim content such as non-fiction books, tapes and videos must not be misleading or exaggerated. Therefore the advert must not have gone through this procedure otherwise they would not have been reported for misleading the public.

CAP Code (Edition 11)3.13.27.19.19.249.149.3BCAP TV Code5.1.15.1.25.2.15.2.66.16.47.4.17.4.67.4.7BCAP TV Scheduling Code4.2.3

ASA acknowledged some of the complaints and were concerned that children or grandchildren may be upset or worried by the ad. The animated storybook imagery and narrative might be alarming for some young people who saw it. We concluded that, when shown in the context of the timing

restriction applied by Clearcast, the ad was unlikely to cause harm or undue distress to children. The ASA had also done an investigation about the advert about the ‘Truthfulness’ and ‘Environmental claims’ but did not find it in breach. Therefore ASA had taken no action towards this complaint.

However they had noted that the ad had been an ‘ex-kids’ by ‘Clearcast’ therefore it should not be broadcasted while younger children watching TV or put on Children specialised channels.

2nd Case Study

The date is the 2nd June 2010 and the company is called ‘Department of Health’. There was 2 complaints made about this advert from this company. The centre of the complaint challenged the claim that woman would be three times more likely to get mouth cancer. The advert shows two woman at home sharing a bottle of wine. One of the women on screen shows her internal organs and skeleton to show the damage that happens when you consume a large glass on wine more than once a day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2a5ICC0Iw0

The main issues of the complaints were that the advert had been misleading and had said that you are three times more likely to get mouth cancer. They had used imagery such as the woman’s skeleton and lungs showing to show the internal damage you would get by drinking. It would also show that you get a lot of internal damage you do not notice. The advert also exaggerates the risks of alcohol consumption with the imagery as it shows that you are three times as likely to get a stroke as they show the woman’s brain as the damage starts developing.

BCAP TV Code5.1.15.2.1ASA had acknowledged the references made by Department of Health which considered the risks of alcohol consumptions. The ASA had also noted that the National Institute of Clinical Excellence stated that alcohol consumption is an important risk factor for cancers of the mouth. It would become a greater risk with tobacco and a lot more alcohol consumption. Clearcast considered the claims about the risks associated with drinking alcohol was exaggerated in the advert. Therefore Clearcast sent their medical consultant who confirmed that the claims were not false or misleading.

ASA acknowledged the complaints and the advert was investigated under the standard TV broadcasting codes for misleading adverts however nothing was seen as a breach. Therefore no other action was necessary.

Case Study Links

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/10/Department-of-Energy-and-Climate-Change/SHP_ADJ_258066.aspx

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/7/LOreal-(UK)-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48743.aspx

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/2/Lifescan-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48050.aspx

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/3/Department-of-Energy-and-Climate-Change/TF_ADJ_48225.aspx

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/6/Department-of-Health/TF_ADJ_48538.aspx