October 10, 2016

The ASA says that while the majority (70%) of the complaints it receives are about misleading claims, the ads that prompt complaints en masse are often those that have upset people because they contain themes or images that they find offensive.

Judging whether some ads that undoubtedly cause offence should be banned presents the ASA with a challenge, as what one person finds offensive another will find perfectly acceptable.  And, vice versa, what one person finds funny and amusing another will find gravely distressing.

The ASA acknowledges that there are ads that fall into a grey area and, while they do not necessarily cause outright offence, still raise concerns in the form of complaints because they are seen as being in bad taste.

The advertising rules allow for the fact that some ads may be distasteful, the ASA explains.  Just because someone does not like an ad is not necessarily reason for the ASA to ban it.

The ASA explains that its decision-making in this area “inevitably involves a degree of subjectivity”.  However, its rules help guide it in making “as balanced a judgment as we can”.

The ASA says that when reaching a decision, it takes into account the audience that is likely to see the ad and asks whether it is going to be generally suitable for them and in line with their views and expectations of what the advertiser has to say.  The media in which an ad appears can play an important part in minimising the risk of an ad causing offence, the ASA explains.

The context in which an ad appears and the product it is promoting also has a bearing on whether it will be acceptable.  For example, using stark and upsetting imagery in a charity ad to raise awareness of an important issue is generally more acceptable (to consumers and the ASA) than say an advertiser using similarly provocative imagery to advertise an everyday consumer product or service.  Using shock tactics is not prohibited by the rules but using them carefully and in context is key to reducing the likelihood of an ad prompting a negative reaction amongst viewers, the ASA explains.

There are also prevailing standards in society to consider. In reaching a decision on whether to ban ads on the grounds of offence the ASA takes into account how individuals, groups or wider society as a whole who may see the ad are likely to react to it.  To help judge prevailing standards, the ASA commissions consumer research to find out what concerns people, what causes offence and where they think the line should be drawn, all of which helps the ASA in its decision-making.

The ASA says that it is crucial that it takes “a balanced and proportionate approach when applying the rules”.  The question is whether the offence that has been caused is so serious that the rights of the offended outweigh the rights of the unoffended to see and hear what the advertiser has to say.  The advertiser’s right to free expression also has to be considered.

When a line has been crossed the ASA says that it will act, particularly where the protection of children is concerned.  However, banning an ad because it has caused offence is not straightforward; nor is it a decision that the ASA takes lightly.  “Advertisers can and do create ads that are deliberately irreverent, strange, annoying, weird, fantastical or just plain odd. Not everyone will like them, but bad taste doesn’t always mean offence and, by extension, it doesn’t mean an ad should always be banned”, the ASA concludes.  To read the guidance note in full, click here.