Latest Decisions: Tall Poppy radio ad did not breach Code, advocacy advertising, and more

The following decisions have been released to the ASA website:

Tall Poppy radio ad did not breach Code

The radio advertisement for Tall Poppy Real Estate said “Kāpiti and Horowhenua Community Notices, with Tall Poppy Real Estate – They’ve saved New Zealanders $53 million and counting…Tall Poppy, a home-grown Kiwi business with a fresh take on real estate. Licensed REAA 2008.”

The Complainant was concerned the claim regarding the amount Tall Poppy Real Estate has saved New Zealanders was misleading, as real estate commissions had reduced in recent years and the advertiser would not know what fees their competitors were charging.

In their response, the Advertiser said the amount quoted is based on an algorithm which compares their fee structure with established commission rates, was regularly reviewed to reflect the market, and was also based on the premise that if Tall Poppy were not in the market, competitor agencies would charge the higher fees listed in their contracts instead of discounting to meet their rates.

The majority of the Complaints Board ruled the advertisement was not misleading, noting the Advertiser had provided sufficient information to explain how the figure of $53 million was calculated. The majority noted this information was available on the Tall Poppy website and the formula used supported the figure quoted in the advertisement.

In accordance with the majority, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.

Advocacy ads must sufficiently disclose advertiser identity

The Family First billboard advertisement depicted a close up of a pregnant woman with the text “Human rights begin in the womb.” The advertisement includes the website address “”

The Complainant was concerned the identity of the Advertiser was not obvious on the billboard or on the website listed in the advertisement. The Complainant said the position of the Advertiser, namely opposing the Abortion Legislation Act was not made clear on the advertisement.

The Complaints Board considered the complaint and said while the position of the advertiser was clear, the lack of information on the identity of the Advertiser, Family First, meant it was likely consumers could be misled or confused about which organisation was responsible for the advertisement.

The Complaints Board said the URL on the advertisement, “” took the consumer to a website which did not make it clear to consumers that Family First was the Advertiser until the last page of the website in very small font. The Complaints Board also noted the ‘Contact Us’ tab on the website did not indicate to consumers that Family First were responsible for the content.

The Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Upheld, and the advertisement to be removed or amended.