New decisions: Off-Road Vehicles, Dental Adhesives And More
The following decisions have been published on the ASA website:
- Complaint 16/283 Weleda – Not Upheld, Appeal Dismissed
- Complaint 16/349 Watchdog – Not Upheld and Settled
- Complaint 16/360 Medico Herbs – Settled
- Complaint 16/379 LDV Vans – Settled
- Complaint 16/387 Arnet Law – Upheld
- Complaint 16/388 Why Not Tattoos – Upheld
- Complaint 16/393 Total Health Chiropractic – Settled
- Complaint 16/397 Volvo Car New Zealand – Not Upheld
- Complaint 16/398 Wicked Campers – Upheld
- Complaint 16/401 Glaxo Smith Kline – Not Upheld
- Complaint 16/402 Wet & Forget – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/407 ApplianceSmart – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/409 Harvey Norman Lif3 – Not Upheld
- Complaint 16/414 NZ Transport Agency – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/416 Spatial Investment Group – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/417 SD European – Settled
- Complaint 16/419 Bonds Industries Ltd – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/424 Gun City – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/425 Hamilton City Council – No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 16/431 Save My Bacon – Settled, Media Error
- Complaint 16/346 Hyundai Motors NZ – Not Upheld
Hyundai Ad Follows Safety and Environmental Guidelines
A 30-second Hyundai Motors NZ television advertisement promoted the fact that Hyundai had been given the automotive industry’s Canstar award for customer satisfaction. It showed two Hyundai off-road vehicles driving along a road and then causing a spray of soft sand as they drove onto and then along a deserted beach.
A complaint said that although driving vehicles on many beaches in New Zealand was not illegal, it was an undesirable use of coastal environments and a hazard for other beach users. The Complainant believed vehicles should not be promoted in the manner used in the advertisement.
The Advertiser submitted a list of all the safety and environmental precautions taken in the production of the television advertisement. The Commercial Approvals Bureau agreed there was “no depiction of unsafe driving practice nor damage to any sand dunes or tussock areas” and no laws or Advertising Codes had been broken.
The Complaints Board said the Advertiser’s approach to creating the advertisement had been respectful with regard to regulations and the advertisement was not in breach of the Code for Advertising Vehicles. Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled to Not Uphold the complaint.
Dental Adhesive Research Sufficient for Claim
A 30-second Family Health Diary Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) television advertisement for Polident denture adhesive showed Jude Dobson at a table with a group of denture users. The advertisement said that Polident “seals out 74 percent more food.*” The asterisk by this claim pointed to a qualifying statement at the bottom of the screen which says: “vs no adhesive on lower denture.”
The Complainant was concerned the advertisement for Polident denture adhesive claimed that it sealed out 74 percent more food but failed to clarify more than what, how the 74 percent measurement was obtained and whether the food involved was liquid or solid.
The Advertiser said that the data came from a GSK Food Occlusion Study Report that was conducted to evaluate the performance of Polident denture adhesives for preventing food particles from becoming trapped under dentures. They also said that the purpose of the advertisement was to show the best use and benefits of a denture adhesive and the food seal claim was a secondary benefit at the end of the advertisement.
The Complaints Board agreed the advertisement’s claim was supported by evidence and the advertisement was not in breach of the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.
