Videos on the Frosty Jack’s YouTube page promoted a cider drink.
a. An internet video ad, titled Anti-wasp , featured a man killing a wasp with an aerosol and lighter.
b. A second internet video ad, titled Anti-Gimmicky featured a man talking about the features of his car in a comically exaggerated fashion.
c. A third internet video ad, titled Anti Busybody. Anti-controversial , featured a man parking in a disabled space. When questioned by another man he said that he had Tourettes and shouted Twat .
A member of Alcohol Concern’s Youth Alcohol Council challenged whether:
- ad (a) was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18, because it showed a person behaving in an adolescent or juvenile manner;
- ad (b) was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18; and
- ad (c) was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18
ASA Decision: Complaints Upheld
1. Upheld
We noted that the ad featured a young man killing a wasp with an aerosol and lighter, whilst smiling. We considered that the ad showed a person behaving in a juvenile and cruel manner. We noted that the ad did not portray the young man drinking or consuming the product, but considered that the action in the ad displayed irreverent andladdish behaviour. Although we did not consider that the ad would appeal to all, we considered that that action was likely to appeal particularly to young people.
Because we considered that the juvenile and irreverent behaviour in the ad would appeal particularly to young people, including those who were under 18 years of age, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.14 (Alcohol).
2. Upheld
We noted that the character’s monologue described his car and lifestyle in an exaggerated and boastful way, which did not match the modest reality which viewers could see in the video. We considered that the character’s immodest monologue about his car played on his apparent lack of self-awareness and relied on a stereotyped characterisation of a misguided young man. In light of that, we considered that the ad’s content, and the type of humour it used, was likely to appeal particularly to young people.
In light of the type of humour and stereotyped characterisation that the ad used, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.14 (Alcohol).
3. Upheld
We considered that the action in the ad relied on mocking someone who had simply pointed out that the parking space should be reserved for the disabled, and that the protagonist subsequently pretended to have Tourettes to insult that person. We considered that that type of humour was irreverent and juvenile and, although we did not consider that that approach would appeal to all, we considered it was likely to appeal particularly to young people. We also considered that the ad trivialised a neurological condition which affected children and adults, and that the action in the ad could be seen to reinforce negative stereotypes in relation to Tourettes. We also considered that the ad suggested that it was acceptable for anyone to use a disabled parking space, rather than recognising that it was a space reserved for those with disabilities.
We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.14 (Alcohol). Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form.
Melon Farmers Latest
