The following decisions have been released to the ASA website:
Complaint 20/261 Krispy Kreme, Digital Marketing, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/285 Future Bars, Minus 5 Ice Bar, Outdoor, Upheld
Complaint 20/297 Kawacure, Website, Settled
Complaint 20/298 Salud Health Products, Website, Upheld
Complaint 20/306 Chinese Consulate, General, Print, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/321 Harcourts Hamilton Rentals, Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 20/331 Metlink, Out of Home, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/334 Nespresso, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/335 Tradie Workwear, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/337 Harcourts Real Estate, Kapiti Coast, Radio, Settled
Complaint 20/343 Human Rights Commission, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/345 Tasman Insulations, Pink Batts, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/346 Gigi NZ, Billboard, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/348 New Conservative Party, Addressed Mail, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/350 Trivago New Zealand, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/351 Tradie Workwear, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/352 Antares Restaurants, Burger King, Digital Marketing, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/353 Ding Dong Lounge, Out of Home, Settled
Complaint 20/359 New Zealand Broadcasting School, Radio, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/380 Jennie Brown East Coast Candidate for Advance NZ Public Party, Facebook, Decline to Adjudicate
Complaint 20/336 NZ National Party, Facebook, Not Upheld
Complaint 20/338 Bloom Massage Therapy, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 20/339 NZ National Party, Facebook, Decline to Adjudicate
Complaint 20/355 Health 2000, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 20/362 Secular Education Network, Teach not Preach, Digital Marketing, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/373 Foodstuffs, Pak N Save, Television, Settled
Complaint 20/381 Votesafe.co.nz, Billboard, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/290 Hell Pizza and Best Wine Company, Website, Settled in part, Not Upheld in part
Complaint 20/383 New Conservative Party, Facebook, Decline to Adjudicate
Complaint 20/021 Griffins Food Company, Toffee Pops, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/190 Ashley and Martin, Radio, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/266 Briscoes, Digital Marketing, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/307 Restaurant Brands, Pizza Hutt, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint 20/361 Voice for Life, Unaddressed Mail, Settled
Complaint 20/365 Erabella Hair, Digital Marketing, No Jurisdiction
Complaint 20/374 Goodman Fielder, Natures Fresh, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
Black Salve complaint Upheld for unsubstantiated therapeutic claims
The website advertisement for Black Salve escharotic ointment said “… For topical animal use only. Important: See additional information and links.” The links included in the advertisement directed the consumer to websites which described how Black Salve ointment could be used to treat cancer in humans.
The Complainant was concerned the advertisement was dangerous and misleading, as while the product was sold as an ointment for animals the accompanying links supported the idea that this ointment could be used to treat cancer in humans.
When considering the complaint, the Complaints Board agreed the information in the linked websites formed part of the advertisement and the Advertiser did not provide substantiation to support the claims. The Complaints Board said the advertisement was misleading and did not support a high standard of social responsibility, and ruled the complaint Upheld.
Minus 5° Ice Bar out of home ad breached alcohol Code
The ASA received a complaint regarding two minus 5° Ice Bar advertisements, displayed outside the entrance to its premises. The first advertisement showed a minor licking an ice drink beside the premises name, “minus 5° Ice Bar”. The second advertisement depicted four people: a minor licking an ice drink, a man pouring drinks from two bottles of Absolut Vodka, a woman holding a cocktail and a man making an ice sculpture. In the centre of these images is the premises name “minus 5° Ice Bar”.
The Complainant was concerned the signage should not feature a child when the primary function of the premises was the service of alcohol. The Complainant said this is not a family restaurant or activity and the child’s image is shown alongside the word “bar”.
The Advertiser said the ice bar is an activity as opposed to a traditional bar, with a primary focus of families and tourists and is marketed as an adventure or experience.
The Complaints Board said the advertisement depicting the minor licking the ice drink did not have the intent to promote alcohol and the complaint about the first advertisement was Not Upheld.
The Board said the second advertisement showed a bartender pouring from branded vodka bottles and this promoted the consumption of alcohol. In combination with the use of the word “bar” this made an explicit link. The Board unanimously agreed that despite the establishment having a dual function as both a family experience and a licensed bar, positioning an engaging image of a minor next to an image promoting the consumption of alcohol fell short of the high standard of social responsibility required and was in breach of the Code for Advertising and Promotion of Alcohol. The Complaints Board ruled the complaint Upheld.