Latest decisions: noise sensitivity, alcohol advertising, and more.
10 May 2024
The following are the latest decisions from the ASA.
Settled Complaints: The advertiser has amended or removed the advertisement after receiving the complaint.
Complaint 23/135 Global Shop Direct, Wush, Live Television, Settled
Complaint 24/052 Jace Electrical, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/058 JD Sports New Zealand, Facebook, Settled
Complaint 24/064 1 Cover, Out of Home, Settled
Complaint 24/069 Honda New Zealand, Print, Settled
Complaint 24/071 DB Breweries Limited, Ricardo Christie, DB Breweries Limited Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/077 Scorpion Supplements, NYTCAP/PRE LOAD, Email, Settled
Not Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board found the ad did not breach the Advertising Codes in relation to the complainant’s concerns.
Complaint 24/041 Antares Restaurant Group Ltd, Burger King, Live Television, OnDemand, Digital Marketing, Radio, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/044 Global Shop Direct, Fantastic Floating Mop, Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/048 Greenstone Financial Services Pty Limited, OneChoice, Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/049 Tower Insurance, Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/054 Foodstuffs NZ, PAK’nSAVE, Television, Not Upheld
No Further Action: The Chair of the Complaints Board reviewed the ad and the complaint, and ruled the issues raised are not a breach of the Advertising Codes.
Complaint 24/009 Skechers NZ, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/053 Gun City, Print, No Further Action
Complaint 24/055 Lenovo NZ, Digital Marketing, No Further Action
Complaint 24/060 Brandt, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/061 Mondelez NZL, Cadbury, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/062 Foodstuffs NZ, New World, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 24/065 Kiwibank Limited, Digital Marketing, No Further Action
Complaint 24/067 Accident Compensation Corporation, Digital Marketing, No Further Action
Complaint 24/073 Lotto NZ, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 24/074 ANZ, Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/078 GlaxoSmithKline NZ Ltd, Shingrix Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/080 Pregnancy Counselling Service, On Demand, No Further Action
Appeal
Complaint 24/038 Appeal 24/002 Kia Motors NZ, Television, Declined
Decision Summaries
Each month we summarise two decisions from the above list
White Claw x Ricardo Christie Instagram ad removed following concerns it breached Alcohol Code
Complaint 24/071 DB Breweries Limited, Ricardo Christie, DB Breweries Limited Digital Marketing, Settled
An Instagram advertisement for White Claw, posted by Ricardo Christie, has been removed following concerns the advertisement breached the Alcohol Advertising and Promotion Code as it depicted a minor.
The Instagram advertisement promoted White Claw Seltzers and depicted a young child waving at the camera, along with surfing scenes and an image of Ricardo drinking the product.
The complainant was concerned the alcohol advert included a minor under the age of 18 years, in a breach of the Alcohol Advertising and Promotion Code.
The Chair of the Complaints Board accepted the complaint to go before the Board. When notified of the complaint, the Content Creator confirmed they had removed the ad. The Advertiser, DB Breweries, said in their response the post had not been through their regular approval channels, and steps were being taken to ensure all parties were reminded of this process.
Given the self-regulatory actions by the Content Creator and Advertiser in removing the advertisement, the Chair ruled the mater was settled.
Our Quick Guide: Social Media Marketing for Alcohol provides our best tips for advertisers and content creators when advertising alcohol.
Burger King “Crunchy BBQ Whopper” ad did not breach Code
Complaint 24/041 Antares Restaurant Group Ltd, Burger King, Live Television, OnDemand, Digital Marketing, Radio, Not Upheld
The Complaints Board did not uphold 17 complaints about TV, radio, and digital marketing ads for Burger King’s Crunchy BBQ Whopper Burger.
The advertisements featured the loud crunching noises of people eating the advertised product.
Complainants were concerned the ads were triggering for people suffering from misophonia and autism with reports of physical and mental distress caused by the sound effects. Other concerns raised included the ads perpetuated bad manners and did not role model appropriate eating behaviour.
In their response, the Advertiser recognised misophonia could impact individuals’ experiences and apologised for any distress caused. The Advertiser committed to taking this feedback into account for future advertising.
The Complaints Board unanimously agreed the loud crunching sounds did not reach the threshold to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence to most consumers. In the decision, the Board acknowledged the sincere concerns of the complainants and the impact of the advertisement on them, but ultimately agreed the advertisements did not breach the Advertising Standards Code.
Our Quick Guide: Offensive Advertising provides guidance on ensuring ads are appropriate for your audience.
