The following decisions have been published:
- Complaint 17/329 Television New Zealand, YouTube: Settled, advertisement amended/removed
- Complaint 17/355 The Twig Centre, Digital Marketing: Settled, advertisement amended/removed
- Complaint 17/370 BRP, Television: Upheld
- Complaint 17/399 Good Health, Television and Digital: Not Upheld
- Complaint 17/403 Arnica Health and Healing, Digital Marketing: Settled – advertisement removed/amended
- Complaint 17/408 TVNZ OnDemand, Digital Marketing: Settled – Media Error
- Complaint 17/409 The Independent Forklift Company Ltd, Out of Home: Settled – advertisement removed/amended
- Complaint 17/411 Briscoes Group, Digital Marketing: Not Upheld
- Complaint 17/412 SAFE – Save Animals from Exploitation, Out of Home: Upheld, in part
- Complaint 17/413 St Pierre’s, In Store: Settled – advertisement changed/removed
- Complaint 17/416 Bay Reflexology, Digital Marketing: Settled – advertisement amended/removed
- Complaint 17/418 Health Post NZ, Digital Marketing: Settled – advertisement amended/removed
- Complaint 17/420 Goodman Fielder, Digital Marketing: Not Upheld
- Complaint 17/424 NZME: The New Zealand Herald and Newstalk ZB: No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 17/425 The Warehouse Limited, Out of Home: Not Upheld
- Complaint 17/430 NZ Lotteries Commission, Television: Not Upheld
- Complaint 17/431 Isuzu, Television: Not Upheld
- Complaint 17/434 Pick Homeopathy, Digital Marketing: Settled – advertisement changed/removed
- Complaint 17/436 Triple R Massage, Digital Marketing: Settled – advertisement amended/removed
- Complaint 17/445 Gun City, Print: No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 17/446 Harmoney, Digital Advertising: No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 17/447 GSK Whooping Cough Booster Vaccination, Radio: No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 17/448 Finance Now, Television: No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 17/449 Trivago, New Zealand, Television: No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 17/451 NZ Police, Digital Marketing: No Grounds to Proceed
- Complaint 17/452 Vodafone NZL, Digital Marketing: No Grounds to Proceed
Colloquial reference ruled not offensive
The Isuzu television advertisement shows a truck being driven over rural terrain with the voice-over saying “This is John Simpson from Mount Hay Station, Tekapo. John’s been driving this D-Max for a while now. It’s been a great truck and it’s got heaps of life left yet. But even so, he’ll be driving into town to the dealer soon and trading it in for a new D-Max, so someone else can have this one. John’s a good bastard! Be like John! Trade up to a new Isuzu D-Max, so someone else can have your old one.” The advertisement ends with the tag-line “Be a Good Bastard.”
The Complainant said it was rude and vulgar for the advertisement to use the word ‘bastard’.
The Advertiser explained the term was intended as a compliment and the context it was used in was a positive one. It considered the word ‘bastard’ to be a colloquial term and cited several examples of it being used in other media campaigns.
The Complaints Board agreed the term ‘good bastard’ was a colloquial reference used in a good natured, positive message about looking out for others in a rural community. The Complaints Board noted the word ‘bastard’ was ranked a low 24th on the Unacceptable Words On Television and Radio list published by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. In terms of context, medium and intended audience, the Complaints Board said the advertisement used language that was unlikely to offend its target demographic. The Complaints Board said the placement and timing of the advertisement was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to most people viewing this content. Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled to not uphold the complaint.
Disclaimer Did Not Absolve Advertiser of Safe Practice Responsibilities
The television advertisement for BRP’s Seadoo jet ski, showed it being used in various situations, including a scene where two jet skis appear to cross each other’s wake in close proximity. The advertisement included a disclaimer which said “observe applicable laws and regulations. Respect of shoreline residents, and keep a safe distance from other recreationists” and “always ride safely and responsibly”.
The Complainant’s concern was that advertisement showed jet skis zigzagging backwards and forwards across each other’s paths which was dangerous and would encourage people to emulate that behaviour.
The Advertiser said the advertisement was not filmed in New Zealand and carried a disclaimer alerting people to observe applicable laws and regulations. With regard to the scene subject to complaint, the Advertiser said the jet skis were not shown crossing paths, this was only evident from their wake.
The Complaints Board said in this instance the disclaimer did not absolve the Advertiser of its responsibility to ensure their advertisement depicted safe practices. The Complaints Board said the scene where the jet skis had crossed each other’s paths at speed encouraged a disregard for safety, in breach the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Upheld.