New Decisions: Toyota ad did not breach Code, Instant Finance ad amended, and more

The following decisions have been released to the ASA website:

Instant Finance TV ad amended to remove hitting scene

The Instant Finance television advertisement features a couple packing a donkey and cart for a trip away. The couple begin to argue with the woman raising her voice and hitting the man with her handbag.

Three Complainants were concerned the advertisement showed a level of violence which would not be acceptable if the genders were reversed.

The Chair accepted the complaints to go before the Complaints Board to consider whether the Advertising Standards Code and Code for Financial Advertising had been breached. Upon receiving the complaints, the Advertiser amended all versions of the advertisement to remove the scene depicting the woman hitting the man with her handbag.

Given the Advertiser’s co-operative engagement with the process and the self-regulatory action of amending the advertisement, the Chair ruled that the matter was Settled.


Toyota ad depicting Lexus on racetrack did not breach Code

The Toyota New Zealand television advertisement promoting the Lexus IS depicts a winding racetrack before showing the Lexus car being driven around the road. The voiceover says “We don’t just create cars, we create goosebumps. We don’t just make an RPM, but BPM and it doesn’t just grip the road, it grips you too.” The advertisement ends with voiceover saying, “Performance which goes beyond necessary.” The text says “#BEYONDNECESSARY”. The advertisement contains a super which says “Overseas model shown.”

The Complainant was concerned the advertisement showed a car exceeding the speed limit and implied it was OK to break the law.

The Complaints Board considered the complaint, noting the advertisement was promoting the high-performance qualities of the car rather than condoning excessive speed. The Complaints Board said the advertisement could have been clearer by informing the consumer it was filmed in a controlled environment, but the majority agreed there was sufficient imagery in the advertisement to show the vehicle was being driven on a racetrack rather than a public road. In accordance with the majority, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint Not Upheld.