The following decisions have been published on the ASA website:
- 17/153 Greenpeace NZ, Television: Not Upheld
- 17/155 GiGi NZL, Out of Home: Upheld in part
- 17/162 Chorus NZ, Television: Settled in part, Not Upheld in part
- 17/164 BMW NZ, Television: Upheld
- 17/174 Godfreys, Digital Marketing: Settled
- 17/177 NZME, Digital Marketing: Not Upheld
- 17/187 Paramount Pictures, Television: Settled
- 17/189 Reckitt Benckiser (NZ) Ltd, Television: No Grounds
- 17/190 MitoQ, Television: Withdrawn
- 17/192 Pharmabroker Sales Ltd, Television: No Grounds
- 17/196 AA Health, Television: No Grounds
- 17/200 NZ Transport Agency, Digital Marketing: No Grounds
Greenpeace Advocacy Ad OK
The Greenpeace NZ television advertisement included flood images, an image of a ship purporting to be an oil exploration ship and images of Greenpeace protesters. A voiceover said: “This year Kiwis have experienced the most extreme floods, drought and cyclones. Climate change is here and it’s only going to get worse. It’s already threatening our homes, our health and our families…” The advertisement then asked viewers to text their name to Greenpeace to join the organisation.
The Complainant said Greenpeace had no evidence that the events portrayed were caused by global warming and Greenpeace was deceiving the public by suggesting this for political ends.
The Advertiser said the advertisement was drawing a link between climate change, extreme weather events and their impact on humans and that the link was widely scientifically accepted. The Advertiser also submitted information that supported their view that more frequent and extreme weather events are some of the consequences of climate change.
The Complaints Board said the advertisement was an advocacy advertisement, that the identity of the Advertiser, Greenpeace NZ, an environmental lobby group, was clear and that Greenpeace had provided sufficient substantiation for the claims made. The Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.
Ultra-Fast Broadband Campaign Details Clarified
The advertising campaign for Chorus promoted the concept of “Ask for better” in relation to ultra-fast broadband. One advertisement in the campaign portrayed several everyday scenarios and a voiceover said: “Why don’t we ask for better? Like broadband.”
One complainant said the promotion of free installation was misleading as it required the appropriate existing infrastructure. The Advertiser acknowledged the wording, explaining the offer could have been clearer and it made changes to the television advertisement and the website. The Complaints Board agreed to settle this complaint.
Another complainant said the advertisement was misleading when it that said better internet was “right under our feet” because not everyone had access to the underground fibre network. The Advertiser said the advertisements did not give the impression that all consumers were able to access the Chorus fibre network. The Complaints Board agreed it was clear that the advertisement did not claim that Chorus fibre was available everywhere, but consumers were being advised that “better” is here and to check whether better broadband was available to them. Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled that this complaint was Not Upheld.