A TV ad, for Pilgrim’s Choice cheese, showed a woman opening her fridge door. A male voice behind her said Easy there, pilgrim. The woman turned to see a miniature cowboy sitting on the kitchen counter, wiping an oversized cut throat razor on a tea-towel. He proceeded to shave himself with the large blade, wiping the razor across his face and neck, as he spoke to the woman in a low, gravelly voice. The cowboy then jumped off the counter and said, I’ll let myself out before running from the room. The end shot showed the cowboy, on his way out through the cat flap, pointing an oversized gun at a cat. He said, Back off, Mr Wiggles.
The ASA received 35 complaints:
- 24 viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and likely to cause harmful emulation among children, particularly because it was broadcast before 9pm;
- 17 viewers challenged whether the use of a gun in the final scene was offensive, irresponsible and trivialised gun crime; and
- 17 viewers challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, offensive and distressing, because it trivialised knife crime and violent behaviour.
Clearcast pointed out that the cowboy had used the razor correctly and had not done anything untoward with it or handled it in an irresponsible way. They confirmed that they had considered the ex-kids restriction appropriate given the cowboy’s use of the barbershop razor. They believed the likelihood of child emulation was small with that restriction in place and they confirmed that they did not believe the ad required a greater restriction. They said over 16s would appreciate the humour of the miniature cowboy behaving normally and using normal-sized props and that they would not attempt to copy his use of the razor. They said barbershop razors were not items that were commonly found in households, which again reduced the likelihood of emulation.
Adams Foods said the gun scene was clearly intended to be humorous because the cat was almost double the size of the cowboy. They did not believe that the gun scene was irresponsible given that films, such aswesterns , were shown at any time of day and frequently showed guns being fired and people being hurt or even killed by them. They said they did not believe the ad had trivialised gun crime or violent behaviour.
ASA Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that older children would understand that the scenario depicted in the ad was surreal, because of the disconnect between the cowboy and the modern domestic kitchen in which the ad was set, the size of the cowboy and the manner in which he jumped down from the counter and ran out of the kitchen, leaving the property through the cat flap. We judged that older children would understand the shaving scene and the dangers of handling sharp objects. We did not consider that they were at risk of emulation.
However, we were concerned that younger children might not understand the ad and might find the miniature cowboy character particularly intriguing. Although we appreciated that the cowboy was using the razor to shave, we noted that the razor appeared very large and we considered that young children would not distinguish between the blade of a barbershop razor and the blades of common household objects, such as kitchen knives. We were therefore concerned that young children might mimic the cowboy’s actions using common household objects in a manner that could seriously endanger their health.
We noted the restriction Clearcast had applied. However, that did not prevent the ad from being broadcast around daytime programmes that were not specifically targeted at children and we noted that a number of the complainants had seen the ad when watching TV with their young children during the day. We accepted that the restriction in place meant that children who saw the ad were likely to be supervised by their parents or carer who could explain the potentially dangerous behaviour and emphasise that it should be avoided. However, such was the potential for serious harm that would result from emulation by young children, we considered that the scheduling restriction was insufficient to minimize the risk of young children seeing the ad. We judged that the ad should have been given a 9pm timing restriction to ensure that it was not broadcast at a time of day when younger children were likely to be watching.
Because we considered that the ad could encourage younger children to behave in a way that could endanger their health, and because we considered the scheduling restriction applied was insufficient to minimize the risk of younger children seeing the ad, we concluded that the ad had not been scheduled appropriately.
On this point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and offence), 5.2 (Children) and 32.3 (Scheduling).
2. Not upheld
We acknowledged current concern about gun crime, which was reflected in some of the complaints we received. We considered that the size of the gun, both in relation to the cowboy and the cat at which it was pointed, and the fact that the cowboy was attempting to leave the house using the cat flap reinforced that the ad was surreal in nature. We considered that the cowboy’s statementBack off Mr Wiggles dispelled any sense that this was a situation in which the cat was in danger, nor was the scene reminiscent of images that would commonly be associated with gun crime. We did not consider the overall tone of the ad likely to be seen to trivialise gun crime or violent behaviour. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and that it was not socially irresponsible.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 4.2, 4.4 and 4.9 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We acknowledged current concern about knife crime, which was reflected in some of the complaints we received. We noted that the barbershop razor that the miniature cowboy ran across his face and neck appeared very large in relation to him, but we also noted that the razor was being used in the act of shaving and not in a threatening manner. It was not aimed at any other character or out towards the viewer and there was no depiction or suggestion of violence. We did not consider that the impression given by theshaving scene was reminiscent of images that would commonly be associated with knife crime and we did not consider that the overall tone of the ad was likely to trivialise knife crime or violent behaviour. Because of that, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or undue fear or distress and that it was not socially irresponsible.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility) and 4.2, 4.4 and 4.9 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
