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.
Do you ever consider how well you and your people know and understand the ASA Codes and processes? Or perhaps you’ve experienced the Complaints Process for the first time? Whilst the Advertising Standards may not always be top of mind in your busy job, they are a key part of maintaining advertising self-regulation in New… Read More
The Complainants said they found the advertisement offensive because of the use of the phrase “English sucks”. One of the complainants said the Māori language did not need to be promoted by insulting English. Another complainant said they found the advertisement degrading and racist.
The ASA received seven complaints about the advertisement. The Complainants raised concerns the advertisement was misleading because it exaggerated the neurological effects of fluoride on children and used fear to spread a counter-scientific message that fluoride is dangerous to children. The Advertiser said the purpose of the advertisement was to encourage people to attend a presentation on the toxicity of fluoride.
From Thursday 1 November 2018 all new advertising must comply with the Advertising Standards Code. This Code was developed by the ASA Codes Committee, which includes advertiser, agency, media and public representatives, and in consultation with industry and public sectors. The Advertising Standards Code is a consolidation of six codes – the Advertising Code of… Read More
The in-store display stand for LOL Surprise dolls included a picture of a doll dressed in a leather jacket over a bikini style top and pants with fishnet stockings and boots. The Complainant said the pictures shown on the display showed a cartoon image dressed and posed in a sexualised manner and was not age appropriate.
The Complaints Board said the likely consumer takeout of the claim ‘extraordinarily effective’ was that it provided an exceptional level of pain relief and was more effective than other types of pain relief. The Complaints Board ruled the Advertiser had not substantiated that the Pain Erazor provided an exceptional level of pain relief.