Home > Complaints > New Decisions: Irrigation Advocacy, Lotto Treasure Hunts and More

New Decisions: Irrigation Advocacy, Lotto Treasure Hunts and More

The following decisions were published on the ASA website on 24 November 2016:

Deceased Mother’s Lotto Treasure Hunt Deemed OK 

A Lotto NZ television advertisement showed a young woman reflecting on her childhood and remembering her deceased mother. At her late mother’s request, the woman and her brothers dig up the old washing line in their backyard. They find a stack of gold bars, a picture of their mother as a pregnant young woman and a tattered Lotto ticket in a plastic cover. They react jubilantly and the words “Imagine. Powerball” flash on the screen. The advertisement ends with Lotto NZ’s logo in the centre of the screen.

A complaint was made regarding “the new Lotto ads with such an emotional story about the loss of a parent which would seem to trigger an emotional contact with gambling. It seems wrong to be able to advertise the hope of changing people’s life with something as triggering as the loss of a parent and something as completely unlikely as winning Lotto.”

The Advertiser said the content of the advertisement did play on an emotional theme, but this had been dealt with in a socially responsible manner. They maintained the advertisement was “addressing the realities of the situation – such as grief and carrying out last wishes – in a sensitive way. The overall theme was a mother’s wish to provide for her children once she was gone, which was emphasised by the mother’s dedication to providing her children with an excellent childhood.”

The Complaints Board said the storyline did not imply or state that gambling solved financial or emotional problems and the Lotto ticket was essentially incidental to the story of a mother’s last treasure hunt for her children. They unanimously agreed the advertisement had not breached the Code of Ethics, concerning the areas of social responsibility, decency and offensiveness. The Complaints Board also agreed the advertisement observed the high standard of social responsibility required by the Code for Advertising Gaming and Gambling.

Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled to Not Uphold the complaint.

Irrigation Advocacy Provided for in Advertising Code

A newspaper advertisement for Irrigation NZ was headed “Dam Right! Why the Ruataniwha Dam is good for the Hawkes Bay community, the environment and the local economy”. Under this heading there were five general statements about positive things the proposed new dam will provide. Below this, under the sub heading “Dam the Myths” were four statements described as “Myth” each followed by a statement described as ‘Fact”.

Three complaints were made about this advertisement, claiming the statement in the advertisement “Farming has not caused the Havelock North issue, infrastructure is the problem” was misleading because the source of the water contamination in Havelock North had not yet been identified. There were a number of other concerns raised about the accuracy of other statements in the advertisement.

The Advertisers said the information conveyed in the advertisement could be substantiated using research and reports on the matter.

The Complaints Board agreed the advertisement should be reviewed in the context of advocacy advertising, which usually presents strong views. As such, and in the interests of freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act 1990, a more liberal interpretation of the Code was appropriate.

The Complaints Board agreed all of the statements made in the advertisement were provided for under the provision of advocacy, backed up with evidence from the Advertiser, with one exception. They said the statement “Farming has not caused the Havelock North issue, infrastructure is the problem” was absolute and has yet to be proven. The Complaints Board agreed that to state an assumption as a categorical fact was misleading. Therefore, it ruled this statement was in breach of the Code of Ethics.

Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Upheld in part.