UPDATE from lisa newton Thank you for signing and sharing this petition! As well as starting this petition I also emailed the Advertising Standards Agency I have received a reply which was very disappointing (see below). I have appealed this decision and asked them how many signatures do you need to class this advertising campaign as offensive? I will keep you updated to the appeal, in the meantime the ASA online complaint form is - asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx just in case anyone wants to message them. ASA reply Dear Mrs Newton, Thank you again for contacting the ASA and for your patience while we considered your complaint. Our Code says that ads should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. The ASA bases its judgments on the content of the ad and the medium, audience, product type and prevailing standards in society. We recently referred your complaint about this ad, along with a few others which raised similar issues, to the ASA Council, the final arbiter concerning decisions relating to breaches of the UK Codes of Advertising. An ad might be in breach of the Codes by, for example, being likely to cause serious or widespread offence, being materially misleading or risking or causing significant harm. The Council considered the ad and the complaints but concluded that there were no grounds for further action on this occasion. To confirm, the Council assessed a TV ad for Rustlers, as well as content on the advertisers website and Facebook page for the same product range. It considered whether the ads were offensive and irresponsible because it condoned and encouraged animal cruelty, and whether it condoned and encouraged the use of primates as pets. While the Council appreciated the concerns regarding the use of a primate as part of this ad campaign, it noted that the ASA had been provided with assurances from the advertiser that the animals used in the TV ad, or otherwise located on set, had been treated humanely, that they were accompanied by their handlers at all times and that their wellbeing had been taken into account when writing and recording the ad. The Council noted that the ASA had obtained a vet certificate from Clearcast – the organisation responsible for the clearance of most TV ads before broadcast – that confirmed the humane treatment of all animals on set. Given that the ASA had no evidence of animal neglect and that the content of the ads did not show the animal being treated poorly, the Council did not consider that they would be seen as encouraging or condoning animal cruelty or likely to cause serious or widespread offence. The Council did not consider that a breach of our Code had occurred in relation to this point. The Council appreciated that the ads showed the primate in a domestic setting. However it noted that it only appeared in the TV ad when the main character was hungry and seeking food. The Council also noted that once the primate appeared, it immediately vanished from view in the next scene. It noted that the ads did not show the main character acknowledging or interacting with the primate in any way. The Council considered that the way in which the primate was presented in these ads, coupled with the phrase Satisfy your Hunger Monkey was likely to imply that it was a visual representation for hunger and a figment of the characters imagination. It noted that the primate was being used as a brand mascot and did not consider that its general appearance as part of this ad campaign was likely to be seen as irresponsible because it encouraged the use of primates as pets, or cause serious or widespread offence. The Council did not object to the ad for the reasons suggested. I realise this decision may disappoint you but we’ve let the advertiser know about the complaints we’ve received about this ad (without revealing your identity), so they’re aware of the concerns that you’ve raised.
Posted on: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:14:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015