Latest Decisions: Pricing claims, advertiser identification, and more
30 August 2023
The following are the latest decisions from the ASA.
Settled Complaints: The advertiser has amended or removed the advertisement after receiving the complaint.
Complaint 23/130 – Routine NZ, Instagram, Settled
Complaint 23/149 – New Scientist, Addressed Mail, Digital Marketing, Settled
Complaint 23/163 – One NZ, Digital Marketing, Out of Home, Settled
Complaint 23/189 – 4WD Solutions, Radio, Settled
Complaint 23/191 – Simillimum Homeopathic Dispensary, Digital Marketing, Settled
Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board agreed with the complainant that the advertisement breached the Advertising Codes. The advertiser has been asked to remove or amend it.
Complaint 23/152 – The Integrity Institute, Print, Television, YouTube, Billboard, Facebook and Website, Upheld in part, Not Upheld in part
Complaint 23/192 – What is a Woman, Family First, Billboard, Upheld in part, Not Upheld in part
Not Upheld Complaints: The Complaints Board found the ad did not breach the Advertising Codes in relation to the complainant’s concerns.
Complaint 23/167 – Green Cross Health & Reckitt Benckiser Group (Reckitt), Live Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/172 – FreshChoice, Woolworths, Live Television, Not Upheld
Complaint 23/078 – Maskell Street Liquor Centre, Out of Home Signage, Not Upheld
No Further Action: The Chair of the Complaints Board reviewed the ad and the complaint, and ruled the issues raised are not a breach of the Advertising Codes.
Complaint 23/111 – Corona, Lion, Instagram, No Further Action
Complaint 23/175 – Total Gym, Brand Developers Ltd, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/178 – Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand, Radio, No Further Action
Complaint 23/181 – Molemap, Radio, No Further Action
Complaint 23/182 – Matakana Health, Radio, No Further Action
Complaint 23/183 – Humans of Family Court, Out of Home, No Further Action
Complaint 23/184 – Smokefree Aotearoa New Zealand, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/185 – Blind Low Vision NZ, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/187 – NZ National Party, Addressed Mail, No Further Action
Complaint 23/188 – Frank Energy Ltd, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/193 – The Griffin’s Food Company ,On Demand Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/194 – Chorus NZ, Billboard, No Further Action
Complaint 23/195 – Mustang Mach-E, Ford Motors NZL, Live Television, No Further Action
Complaint 23/202 – Hello Fresh, Billboard, No Further Action
Complaint 23/204 – The Meg 2, Warner Bros, Live Television, No Further Action
Withdrawn
Complaint 23/186 – Cancer Society, Instagram, Withdrawn
Appeal
Complaint 23/142 Appeal 23/004 – Te Whatu Ora / Health New Zealand, Television, Declined
Decision Summaries
Each month we summarise two decisions from the above list
First ad breached Code for failing to adequately identify advertiser
Complaint 23/192 – What is a Woman, Family First, Billboard, Upheld in part, Not upheld in part
The Family First digital billboard contained an image of a woman and her adult daughter with the words “What is a woman? What is your mum?” and included the website URL whatisawoman.nz.
One Complainant was concerned the advertisement was offensive and intended to cause harm and incite hate by linking to an anti-trans woman website.
The Chair accepted the complaint to go before the Complaints Board. In their response, the Advertiser stated no offence was intended and it was clear Family First was attached to the website referenced on the billboard.
The Complaints Board agreed the advertisement fell into the category of advocacy advertising and was subject to Rule 2(e) of the Advertising Standards Code, which requires the identity of the advertiser to be clear; opinion to be distinguished from factual information, and factual information to be substantiated. This rule allows advertisers to impart both information and opinions and recognises Section 14 Freedom of Expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
The Complaints Board agreed the advocacy advertisement did not reach the threshold for harm or serious or widespread offence, in the context of the advertiser’s right to express its opinion by posing general questions about the definition of a woman.
However, the Complaints Board said the identity of the Advertiser was not clear on the billboard advertisement in breach of Rule 2(e) of the Advertising Standards Code and it had not met the required due sense of social responsibility under Principle 1 of the Code.
The Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Upheld in part and Not Upheld in part, and the advertisement was not to be used again in its current form.
Our Guidance Note on Advocacy Advertising provides further information on how advocacy advertisements are assessed against the Advertising Standards Code.
Magazine subscription ad amended following misleading discount concerns
Complaint 23/149 – New Scientist, Addressed Mail, Digital Marketing, Settled
A New Scientist advertisement has been amended following concerns it contained a claim that misled consumers on the value of an annual subscription discount.
The New Scientist Digital & Addressed Mail advertisements featured an offer to subscribe to their magazine and other publication formats.
The Complainant was concerned that one offer which included the claim “$420 for 1 year – saving 59%” was misleading.
Upon receiving the Complaint, the Advertiser confirmed they had amended their advertisement to make their pricing claims clearer.
Noting the Advertiser’s self-regulatory action in clarifying their pricing claims, the Chair said it would serve no further purpose to place the matter before the Complaints Board, and ruled the matter was Settled.
The ASA’s Quick Guide: Check It Before You Release It provides our top tips to advertisers to avoid Advertising Standards Code breaches.
