Latest Decisions: Isuzu ad amended, Lotto TVC did not breach Code, and more

The following decisions have been released to the ASA website:

Isuzu ad amended following pronunciation concern

The Isuzu television advertisement promotes the D-Max vehicle. The advertisement begins by introducing a D-Max owner “John Simpson from Mount Hay Station, Tekapo.”

The Complainant was concerned the advertisement mispronounced the place name “Tekapo”.

Upon receipt of the complaint, the Marketing Agent on behalf of the Advertiser accepted the pronunciation of Tekapo in the advertisement was not correct. The Advertiser sought guidance on the correct pronunciation from Ngāi Tahu, the principal Māori iwi of the South Island and rerecorded the voiceover on the advertisement with the correct use of the name Tekapo.

Acknowledging the Advertiser’s co-operative engagement and self-regulatory action in amending the advertisement, the Chair ruled the complaint was Settled.


Lotto TVC did not breach Code

The Lotto NZ television advertisement shows images of community causes benefiting from Lotto grants. The voiceover says, “Ever since the first draw back in ’87, 100% of Lotto NZ profits have gone back to the community. That’s almost $5 billion, helping thousands of great causes right across Aotearoa. So every time you play a Lotto NZ game, someone wins! Now that’s Kiwis helping Kiwis.”

The Complainant was concerned the advertisement is misleading to state 100% of profits go back to the community when financial statements show $20,108 was retained in equity.

In their response, the Advertiser said under the Gambling Act 2003, all profits generated are required to be distributed to the NZ Lottery Grants Board, unless a retention is approved by the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Advertiser said profit retention is occasionally required to fund essential upgrades, and the $20.1 million retention was approved accordingly.

The Complaints Board considered the complaint and agreed the claim that “100% of Lotto NZ profits have gone back to the community” was a factual claim that required substantiation. The Board agreed the substantiation provided by the Advertiser explained the retention of some earnings to pay for business operations. The Complaints Board agreed that the $20.1 million allocated to fund the upgrade and replacement of technology infrastructure was an operational expense which, in keeping with the agreed definition of “profit”, would be deducted before calculating the net profit.

The Complaints Board said the complaint was not likely to mislead or deceive consumers and ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.