Latest decisions: car ads, fine print, and more.
11 April 2024
The following are the latest decisions from the ASA.
Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board agreed with the complainant that the advertisement breached the Advertising Codes. The advertiser has been asked to remove or amend it.
Complaint 24/023 Fat Burning Ninjas, Website, Upheld
Complaint 24/036 Gun City, Out of Home, Upheld
Settled Complaints: The advertiser has amended or removed the advertisement after receiving the complaint.
Complaint 24/021 Freedom Furniture, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/028 Rise Electrical, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/035 Parallel Imported, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/037 Conscious South Canterbury, Print, Settled
Complaint 24/042 Beds 4 U, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/043 The Brothers Green, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/045 Thirsty Liquor, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/047 Flex Fitness Equipment, Digital Marketing, Settled
Not Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board found the ad did not breach the Advertising Codes in relation to the complainant’s concerns.
Complaint 24/005 Lion NZ Limited and Asahi Beverages New Zealand, Steinlager, Long White, Mac’s, Stella Artois, Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/017 Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand Ltd, Mitsubishi Triton, Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/025 New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR), Print, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/032 SPCA, Digital Marketing, 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 24/040 Waka Kotahi/NZ Transport Agency, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/046 Woolworths New Zealand Limited, Milkrun, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 24/050 One NZ, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 24/051 Burnett Foundation, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 24/056 Ford Motors NZL, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 24/057 The Poolhouse, On Demand, No Further Action
Appeal
Complaint 24/029 Appeal 24/001 NZME, The Alternative Commentary Collective Golf Open, Radio, Appeal Declined
Decision Summaries
Each month we summarise two decisions from the above list
Mitsubishi Triton ad did not breach Code through use of fantastical storytelling
Complaint 24/017 Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand Ltd, Mitsubishi Triton, Television, Not Upheld
The Complaints Board has not upheld a complaint regarding a television ad for Mitsubishi Triton, stating the fantastical nature of the advertisement prevented it from breaching the Advertising Standards Code.
The Advertisement depicted children observing a Triton utility vehicle driving off-road. The vehicle is called “the king of the beasts” in the final scenes, while the ad contained the disclaimer “filmed under controlled conditions on closed roads.”
The Complainant was concerned the ad condoned irresponsible driving and disregard for the environment.
The Advertiser defended the ad, explaining it showcased the Triton’s features and power and did not encourage environmental damage. The Advertiser stated it did not feature reckless activity, was filmed at a privately owned filming location, and the vehicle did not exceed 30km/h.
While assessing the advertisement, the Complaints Board dismissed a concern raised by the Complainant regarding the ad targeting children. The Board said featuring children in an ad did not necessarily mean they were the target audience.
In a majority decision, the Complaints Board said the ad did not reach the threshold to encourage or condone dangerous or unsafe practices. The majority said the fantastical elements and use of a wild animal metaphor provided sufficient context to prevent the ad from encouraging the driving practices in real life. A minority disagreed, stating the fantastical element did not save the advertisement from reaching the threshold to breach the Code.
The Complaints Board unanimously agreed the ad did not depict or encourage environmental damage or degradation, noting it was shot at a filming location on established tracks in a pine forest plantation, and not on conservation land.
In accordance with the majority, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.
For more information on safety rules in advertising, read our Get It Right the First Time Guide: Keeping Safety Top of Mind.
Freedom Furniture ad removed following complaint
Complaint 24/021 Freedom Furniture, Digital Marketing, Settled
Freedom Furniture have removed an advertisement following a complaint that their promotion of a storewide sale misled consumers.
The Freedom Furniture TV advertisement included the claim “10% off store wide, terms and conditions apply”.
The Complainant was concerned the terms stated the sale only applied to certain sofa and mattresses.
Upon receipt of the Complaint, the Advertiser confirmed there was a technical campaign set-up issue and the incorrect material had been placed by their agency. The Advertiser confirmed the incorrect material was removed once they were alerted.
Given the self-regulatory action of the Advertiser in removing the advertisement, the Chair ruled the complaint was Settled.
Our Quick Guide: Check It Before You Release It gives our top tips on Code compliant advertising.
