The International Council for Advertising Self-Regulation (ICAS) announced the winners of its first ICAS Global Awards. The judges issued a Special Mention for the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for effective self-regulatory practices through its Code Consolidation project, completed in 2018.
A large outdoor poster for Remedy Kombucha drink showed a photo of a hand holding a bottle of Remedy Kombucha. The text said: “TELL SUGAR TO GET FRUCT”. Two complainants were concerned about the use of the word “FRUCT”, saying the play on an expletive was offensive, inappropriate and designed to shock.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today released its new Gambling Advertising Code following a review of the Code for Advertising Gaming and Gambling. The Code recognises that gambling advertisements must not undermine the need for the prevention and minimisation of gambling-related harm.
The Ministry of Culture and Heritage provides guidelines about the use of the word Anzac in advertising. The guidelines prohibit the use of the word Anzac in trade or business unless approval has been given by the minister for arts, culture and heritage and the governor-general.
There were three complaints about this billboard stating it made a false claim. One Complainant said it is the farmers who are polluting the rivers, not the fertiliser producers. Another Complainant said there wasn’t evidence to back up this claim, and ‘#toomanycows’ is an opinion not a fact.
Prior to Christmas, Glengarry Wines sent both addressed and unaddressed newsletters containing wine promotions. The Complainant was concerned the unaddressed advertisement had direct appeal to children and alcohol should not be marketed in that way. The Advertiser said the unaddressed advertisement had been sent to selected neighbourhoods that matched the target demographic for fine wines.
The Restaurant Brands television advertisement for KFC showed a man changing clothes on the side of the road. The woman holding the towel up for his privacy deliberately dropped the towel as a passing car approached. The Complainants were concerned the advertisement showed a person being sexually harassed and humiliated which is offensive.
The Appeal Board disagreed with the Complaints Board’s ruling on Rule 6 of the Code of Ethics and said the advertisement did not quite meet the threshold to unjustifiably play on fear, although it came very close. In making its decision, the Appeal Board gave greater emphasis to the context of the advertisement…
The Complainant was concerned that the product packaging mimicked pharmaceutical packaging and the promotional material suggested the product had therapeutic properties, including the ability to “cure woes.”
The Complainant was concerned that the use of a centrally mounted windscreen phone holder is unsafe and contrary to police advice. The Advertiser said it was not aware of this safety advice regarding central windscreen positions for phone mounts nor was it able to find this advice from its own online search. The Advertiser noted it had not received information from the NZ Police advising of this safety advice or the requirement for it to adhere to this in any communications.