Latest Decisions: depiction of adoption, comparative claims, and more
17 July 2024
The following are the latest decisions from the ASA.
Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board agreed with the complainant the advertisement breached the Advertising Codes. The advertiser has been asked to remove or amend it.
Complaint 24/087 Lion NZ Limited, Wear it Proud, Website, Facebook, Instagram, Upheld
Settled Complaints: The advertiser has amended or removed the advertisement after receiving the complaint.
Complaint 24/081 Dunedin City Council, Digital Marketing and Print, Settled
Complaint 24/093 DB Breweries Limited, Marc Jacobs, White Claw, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/096 Trevor Jensen, Print, Settled
Complaint 24/109 We.EV, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 24/107 Billson’s Packaging, Facebook, Settled
Complaint 24/122 Beef + Lamb Zealand, Website, Settled
Not Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board found the ad did not breach the Advertising Codes in relation to the complainant’s concerns.
Complaint 24/084 Lion NZ Limited, Speight’s Summit Ultra, Billboard, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/089 Tauranga City Council, Print, Not Upheld
Complaint 24/106 One NZ, Live 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 24/083 Flick Electric Co, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/102 Taxpayers’ Union, Print, No Further Action
Complaint 24/103 One NZ, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/104 Suicide Reduction Trust, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 24/110 Contact Energy, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/111 Restaurant Brands NZ Ltd, KFC, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/112 World Vision NZL, Digital Marketing, No Further Action
Complaint 24/113 Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand, Live Television, On Demand, No Further Action
Complaint 24/116 Avalanche Coffee, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/117 Foodstuffs NZ, Four Square, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/118 Contact Energy, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/119 Expedia Inc, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/120 Foodstuffs NZ, Four Square, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/124 Greenstone Financial Services NZ, One Choice, Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/125 Procter and Gamble Australia PTY LTD, Vicks Live Television and Youtube, No Further Action
Complaint 24/126 One NZ, Live Television, YouTube, No Further Action
Complaint 24/127 One NZ, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/128 One NZ, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 24/129 One NZ, Cinema, Billboards, No Further Action
No Jurisdiction: The complainant’s issue or the content complained about is outside the ASA’s jurisdiction
Complaint 24/101 Forest & Bird, Digital Marketing, Jurisdiction Declined
Decision Summaries
Each month we summarise two decisions from the above list
Emotive One NZ adoption ad did not breach Code
The Complaints Board did not uphold eight complaints about a TV advertisement for One NZ.
The advertisement follows the story of a young man acknowledging he is adopted and undertaking a journey to uncover his heritage. His search is centered on a necklace left with him as a baby. He discovered it is Scottish with the aid of a friend who works for One NZ. The advertisement shows the man travelling to Scotland and meeting a woman, and flashback footage suggests she may be his mother. The advertisement ends with the text “To be continued…”, the One NZ logo and tagline “Let’s get connected”.
The Complaints Board considered eight complaints. The Complainants were concerned it was inappropriate for One NZ to present the serious and sensitive topic of adoption in a light-hearted way. Complainants found the storyline triggering and felt it belittled those connected with adoption. Two Complainants also raised concerns the ad was disrespectful to indigenous and Māori people in the context of forced and iterracial adoptions.
In their response, the Advertiser defended the advertisement, noting it was the first installment of a series about the importance of connection with one another. The Advertiser said it used humour but did not trivialise the experiences of adopted people or suggest the ad was the universal experience of adoption. Responding to the concerns regarding cultural sensitivities, the Advertiser said the ad intentionally does not identify the racial or ethnic background of the lead character and the actors were selected based on their acting ability.
The Complaints Board reviewed the ad to determine whether it breached the Advertising Standards Code with regards to social responsibility and decency and offensiveness. The Board noted their role in adjudicating the complaint was to reflect, not set, the generally prevailing community standards.
The Complaints Board unanimously agreed the advertisement did not reach the threshold to cause harm or serious or widespread offence to most consumers. The Complaints Board said from time-to-time scenarios in advertising do resonate with some consumers who have similar life experiences in a way not intended by the Advertiser. The Board agreed it was difficult to mitigate this in every case and said the advertisement did not on its own reach the threshold to breach the Code. Regarding the concerns about the interracial narrative with reference to the lead character and his adoptive parents, the Complaints Board said there was not enough detail in the advertisement to draw conclusions regarding the nature of the adoption and this aspect of the advertisement did not breach the Code.
Our Quick Guide: Offensiveness in Advertising provides our top tips regarding avoiding common grounds for offence in advertising.
Comparative claims in Speight’s Summit Ultra billboard sufficiently substantiated
Complaint 24/084 Lion NZ Limited, Speight’s Summit Ultra, Billboard, Not Upheld
The Complaints Board has Not Upheld a complaint regarding a Speight’s ad which made comparative claims against other NZ beer brands.
The billboard advertisement for Speights Summit Ultra low carbohydrate lager included the text “75% less carbs*” and the disclaimer “*Than the average carb content of leading NZ beer brands.”
The Complainant was concerned the ad was misleading as it did not state which brands the product was compared against.
The Advertiser said the ad made it clear the comparison is with products of leading NZ beer brands and provided evidence it has repeatedly carried out testing on the carbohydrate content of Speights Ultra and the ten leading beer brands (by volume) with results showing at least 75% less carbohydrates.
The Complaints Board reviewed the case and said the Advertiser had provided sufficient substantiation for the definitive comparative claim made in the advertisement. The Complaints Board agreed with the Advertiser’s response that it would not be practical to list all compared brands on the billboard advertisement, noting the Alcohol Advertising and Promotion Code requires that Advertisers must hold evidence to substantiate claims if challenged.
Our Quick Guide: Can’t Prove It? Don’t Say It provides guidance to advertisers on types of claims and the evidence required to substantiate them.
