To help your marketing connect with and be well received by your customers and also to keep within the law, we’ve compiled a list of extracts from recent ASA complaint rulings to help guide you through your next marketing campaign.
This one shows that advertisers need to be extra conscious of health and safety issues. Pulling an expensive ad can be more costly that a court fine.
Complainant, G. Purches, said: “Volkswagen are running a TV advert to promote its 4-motion SUV vehicle. The advert features two high profile New Zealand (one surname is Burling) water-sport competitors in the driver and passenger seat with a third in the back, towing a vehicle up a slipway. The vehicle stops halfway up the slipway, the driver says to the rear passenger “bung”, effectively ordering the the rear passenger to fit the bung in the back of the boat. The rear passenger climbs out, and slips and crashes on his back on the wet slipway on the way to the rear of the boat. The camera then pans to the driver and front seat passenger, with the latter laughing about what could have been a fatal accident as the victim was at risk of serious head injury as his head hit the slipway, and he could have also suffered spinal and other injuries. The advertisement uses high profile sport people to promote bad and unsafe practices which could have led to serious injury or death, and treats those practices as a joke. Bad and unsafe practices and making light of accidents involving people should not be aired on prime time television, or for that matter on television at all at any time.
The Advertiser, Volkswagen NZ, said: “Volkswagen New Zealand has taken the matters raised by the complainants in this matter very seriously and never intended to offend the viewing audience nor portray any unsafe practices. FCB New Zealand endorses the complaints system operated by the ASA and the self regulatory advertising regime it promotes. Accordingly the advertisement has been withdrawn from broadcast and will not be broadcast again.
This one shows that some people see entirely the opposite message than the advertiser intended. What’s more the complainant thinks the ad will devalue their home.
Complaint: The “Tech in a Sec” television advertisement for Spark NZ Ltd Business Mobile told the story of two neighbours who started a business together. The advertisement stated, in part: “you hear so often about shared driveways causing dramas between neighbours and for your guys it caused a business.”
Complainant, M. Wolhuter, said: “I find the Spark advertisement offensive because it includes a reference to problems with neighbours on shared driveways, which, in my opinion, has far reaching negative marketing implications for people with shared driveways who want to sell. We are interested in selling our home this year, and strongly feel that this advert sheds a negative light on shared driveways, and it certainly draws attention to potential problems which may put buyers off.”
The relevant provisions were Basic Principle 4 and Rules 2, 5 of the Code of Ethics.
The Chairman noted the concerns of the Complainant the advertisement presented shared driveways in a negative way which, in the Complainant’s view, could affect the sale of a house with a shared driveway. The Chairman disagreed. In her view, the advertisement presented shared driveways as a positive thing in this instance where neighbours began a successful business together. The Chairman said it was unlikely consumers would not consider purchasing a home with a shared driveway because of the advertisement. Therefore, taking in to account prevailing community standards, the Chairman said the advertisement was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to most people and was not in breach of Rule 5 of the Code of Ethics.
Lots of complaints about Bambillo advertising. This one was not upheld but it highlights the old adage of “Buyer Beware”
Complaint: The advertisement for the Bambillo pillow offered viewers four extra pillows when they purchased one pillow. It stated: “That’s right. Buy one, get four free.”
Complainant, K. Elliott , said: “Bambillo ad says “buy one get 4 free”, I have a bambillo pillow that I paid $50 for. They wanted interval payments equally $250, that’s false advertising, no pillow is “free”, not cool. When you can buy the singular pillow at Sylvia park for $50 this is false advertising and an economic mistrust. Nothing is “free”. In fact it costs more! Please stop this injustice.”
The relevant provisions were Basic Principle 4 and Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.
The Chairman noted the Complainant’s view the offer in the advertisement of a free pillow was misleading.
She noted the Complainant had been able to purchase one pillow from another retailer for $50, while the television advertisement for the product offered five pillows for $250 and implied the fifth pillow was free. The Chairman said an Advertiser was entitled to sell a product at whatever price it wanted, therefore, the variation in prices offered by retailers offering a price for a single pillow did not make the offer in the television advertisement misleading. She also said consumers could make their own comparison between the Advertiser’s prices against other retailers, as the Complainant had done. Therefore, the Chairman was of the view there was nothing in the advertisement that was likely to deceive or mislead the consumer or breach the requirement for advertisements to observe a due sense of social responsibility. Therefore, the Chairman ruled there was no apparent breach of the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the Chairman ruled that there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.
