ASA’s creepy crawler…The UK advert censor outlines how it scours the internet looking for easy offence and gender sterotypes

Read more me_asa.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

In this article we want to share more details of the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that break the rules. The ASA is already a proactive regulator. Our expert teams are constantly trying to understand emerging issues and monitor compliance with the rules. But the scale of online advertising makes this challenging and resource intensive. The Active Ad Monitoring system our Data Science team has built sorts through big volumes of ads, delivering intelligence to experts across the ASA and allowing them to do their jobs more quickly and efficiently. The Active Ad Monitoring system is made up of three components: Ad capture at scale — The system captures ads from social media, search and display using a mix of public sources, our own internal monitoring tools and proprietary datasets AI-based filtering — Machine learning models are configured to spot the ads that are most likely to be relevant to a given issue, or to have specific compliance problems Expert review — Our experts can browse and search content related to their work via a web interface that allows them to quickly assess issues, and identify problematic examples for action Developing the capabilities of the system is an ongoing project. At the moment it only covers a subset of the issues the ASA is working on. But it is already making an impact in high-priority areas, and currently processes more than 100,000 ads each month. In the past, we would have relied on limited, labour-intensive manual searches and complaints from the public to stay on top of any non-compliant ads. Today, we use our Active Ad Monitoring system. After capturing ads by relevant advertisers from a range of social media platforms, the system applies machine learning algorithms to identify and flag likely non-compliant ads, for our experts to review and act on. Each week the Compliance team is presented with an organised list of any ads that the Active Ad Monitoring system has identified as likely to break the rules, with explanations of the issues found. This has enabled us to act quickly, taking follow-up action with advertisers to secure compliance, and working closely with platforms to take down ads where necessary. Overall, the ASA’s work, assisted by our Active Ad Monitoring system has already led to hundreds of ads being either amended or withdrawn. At the ASA we are not just investing in AI, we are committed to creating and deploying real-world applications that lead to fewer non-compliant ads. We are, therefore, continuing to rapidly develop our Active Ad Monitoring system, making it an even more core part of the way we regulate.

Junk decisions…Transport for London ludicrously bans a stage show poster depicting a wedding cake

Read more ssadv.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbc.co.uk

A poster for a West End play featuring a wedding cake was banned by Transport for London (TfL) ludicrously seen as promoting foods high in fat, salt and sugar.The ad for Tony n’ Tina’s Wedding , a dinner show at Wonderville, Haymarket, featured a three-tier sponge cake. The interactive show is set at an Italian-American wedding, with a three-course meal, live music and dancing. Producer Paul Gregg told BBC London they could not run the posters after they delivered them to TfL. He said of TfL: They said ‘you can’t put these up, they’ve got cake on’. It was a bit of a surprise…

Silence is golden, Harry…ASA advert censors whinge about sex toy poster referencing Prince Harry’s inane prattling

Read more me_asa.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A digital billboard ad for a Lovehoney ball gag sex toy, seen on 8 February 2023 at Clapham Junction station, featured an image of a ball gag and large text that stated Silence is golden, Harry. Smaller text underneath stated Spare ball gags available at http://www.lovehoney.co.uk. A complainant challenged whether the ad was: offensive; and inappropriate for display in an untargeted medium where children could see it. Response Lovehoney Group Ltd said that they did not believe that the ad was offensive. The ad was launched in response to the release of Prince Harry’s memoir. They pointed to the fact the memoir contained a number of indiscreet revelations, some of which had a sexual reference. At the time the ad was published, Lovehoney issued a press release that explained their motivation for the ad and how it should have been understood, which included that it was meant to be humorous and that not all family stories needed to be shared with the public. 2. They did not believe that the ad was inappropriate for display in an untargeted medium where children could see it. A ball gag had no explicit sexual reference and its way of use was not readily identifiable without further knowledge. Children would not recognise it as a sex toy, and there was nothing in the ad to change that. Neither the picture nor the text spoke to children and therefore made it uninteresting to them. They would, therefore, either ignore it or, at most, wonder what it was about, yet, without seeing any inappropriate hints. Lovehoney therefore believed that this was insufficient to exceed the threshold of inappropriateness. ASA Assessment 1. Not upheld The ad featured a large image of a ball gag and text that stated Silence is golden, Harry. and Spare ball gags available at http://www.lovehoney.co.uk. We understood that a ball gag was a sex toy that was placed in the mouth of a person to limit them from talking. The ASA considered that some people would find the image of, and references to, a ball gag and the implication that it should be used to stop someone from speaking distasteful. However, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. 2. Upheld The ad appeared on a digital billboard at a busy train station, which was an untargeted medium, where it had the potential to be seen by a large number of people, including children. As referenced above, the ad included a large image of a ball gag and a reference to ball gags in the text in the poster, which we considered inappropriate for children to see. We considered that while younger children were likely to be unaware of what the item was, older children might have greater awareness of what the object was intended for. We therefore considered that the ad was inappropriate for outdoor display where it could be seen by children. The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Lovehoney Group Ltd to ensure that their ads were appropriately targeted.

Man up ASA!…Advert censors ban Jake Abbott body building advert citing body image issues

Read more me_asa.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A post on JA Physique Ltd trading as Jake Abbott’s Instagram page, seen on 9 May 2022, showed front and back before and after photographs of a young male wearing only shorts. It stated Another young gun with his current update today! — Setting the foundations for one of the most incredible natural male physiques you will see in the future — Are you looking to transform your physique. Finally want to overcome the hurdles to fat loss and muscle gain that you’ve been unable to achieve alone? The ASA, who considered the person in the ad seemed under 18 years of age, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it exploited young people’s insecurities about their body image. ASA Assessment; ASA view upheld The CAP Code required marketers to ensure advertising was prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. The ASA noted that the advertised programme related to diet and exercise. We understood that the boy featured was 14 at the time the ad appeared and considered that the photographs showed someone clearly aged under 18. We considered that young people who might already be more body conscious because of pre-existing societal pressures (regardless of their actual weight or size, and including those who were of a healthy weight) could be especially vulnerable to ads promoting changing body types being directed at them. We considered teenage boys in particular would recognise the images in the ad as depicting someone of their age, and would see the after image as presenting a body shape with significant increase in muscle as desirable for someone of their age, particularly when read in conjunction with the statement Another young gun with his current update today!. We also considered that the text stating that the child featured was Setting the foundations for one of the most incredible natural male physiques you will see in the future, further reinforced that the body shape portrayed was the ideal for males, including teenage boys. We considered that an ad which suggested a child should change their body shape was likely to exploit young people’s potential insecurities around body image, or risked putting pressure on them to take extreme action to change their body shape. We therefore considered the ad was irresponsible and in breach of the Code. The ad must not appear again. We told JA Physique Ltd to ensure that future posts were responsible.

Causing unnecessary distress to viewers…Aggressive vegan TV advert banned by ASA

Read more me_asa.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk See video from YouTube

A TV ad for Vegan Friendly UK, a campaign group, seen in March 2022, showed two women and one man sat around a table eating. The first woman said, [A]nd plastic straws are ruining the oceans. Poor fish don’t stand a chance. A close-up of the woman’s mouth whilst eating fish was shown, followed by three clips of fish in quick succession, before showing the woman’s mouth again. The first clip showed a large number of live fish out of water on a conveyor belt, the second clip showed a close-up of a fish head which was still gasping for air, and the final clip showed headless fish being filleted on a chopping board that had streaks of blood and fish guts on it. The man then said, There’s countries that still have bullfighting, to which the first woman replied, And wet markets. A close-up of his meal was then shown, followed by a close-up of him eating it. The man replied, They just don’t care about animals like we do babe, followed by three clips in quick succession. The first clip showed a live piglet, alongside a pig with its eyes closed. The second clip then showed pork meat being chopped with a cleaver, followed by blood splashing onto a takeaway box. The second woman then said, Let’s not even mention human rights issues. A close-up of the man eating with his mouth open was shown, and quickly followed by a close-up of a burger, with thick red sauce spilling out. The first woman replied, Can we all just treat living beings the same please, to which the second woman said That’s real equality. A close-up of the woman eating the burger was shown, followed by a clip of a cow’s face which appeared to have tears coming from its red eye, alongside a moo-ing sound. Close-ups of all three adults eating loudly with their mouths open were shown in quick succession, and the second woman had red sauce smeared on her face. Interchanging clips of animals followed by the humans’ eyes were then shown. The first animal clip showed a piglet’s eyes, alongside a squealing noise. The second animal clip was a fish out of water with its gills moving. The third animal clip showed the eye of a pig, accompanied by squealing, and the fourth showed the eye of a chicken, accompanied by squawking. The face of a live cow was then shown, which was then quickly followed by a cow’s skinned head, with its eyes and teeth still present, lying on its side. As they continued to eat, text stated no animal was harmed, consumed, or purchased to make this advert, followed by the text MAKE THE CONNECTION. The ASA received 63 complaints: 1. Some complainants challenged whether the ad contained graphic imagery and gratuitous violence towards animals, which caused unnecessary distress to viewers; 2. Some complainants also challenged whether the ad was scheduled appropriately, because it was broadcast when children could be watching; and 3. Some complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive because it vilified meat eaters. Vegan Friendly believed that the ad did not cause distress, but said that if offence was caused by the ad, it was justifiable because billions of animals were killed in the meat industry. ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld 1. & 2. Upheld The BCAP Code stated that ads must not distress the audience without justifiable reason. The Code also stated that relevant timing restrictions must be applied to ads that might harm or distress children of particular ages, or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. We acknowledged that the ad was given a scheduling restriction which prevented it from being transmitted in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal to children under 16. The ASA noted that some of the imagery used in the ad was graphic in nature. Whilst some of the images were not inherently graphic or violent, we considered that some of the clips shown were likely to cause distress within the context of the ad; in particular, the clip of the cow which appeared to be crying, and the several clips that showed fish struggling to breathe. We also considered that the image of the skinned cow’s head shown at the end of ad was particularly graphic and, in itself, likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences. We considered the way in which the ad was shot had an impact upon the distress likely to have been felt by the audience. We noted that the quick succession of clips shown throughout the ad, and the juxtaposition between the adults eating and the animal imagery, would heighten the distress felt by viewers. We also considered that the camera angle was used to focus on the distress of the animals shown in the ad, for example by focusing on the gills moving in the several clips of the fish or the eye of the crying cow. In addition, we considered that the splash of blood that jumped from one clip and landed on the takeaway box in the following clip, deviated from what would be expected in normal food preparation, and as such we considered its inclusion to be gratuitous. We therefore considered that the way that the ad had been shot and edited contributed to the visceral nature of the ad. We noted that both Clearcast and Vegan Friendly UK understood that the imagery shown in the ad was akin to what viewers could expect to see in cookery programmes or on the high street when walking past a butcher’s shop or fishmonger’s shop. We acknowledged that some clips which showed meat or fish being prepared for consumption, such as the fish being filleted, would not be out of place out on food programmes or when purchasing meat or fish. However, we considered that several of the clips shown, such as the clips which depicted animals in distress or the skinned cow’s head, would likely not be seen in these places. In addition, visiting a butcher or watching a cookery programme was an active choice which came with different expectations to those of TV ads. For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences and therefore was not suitable for broadcast on TV regardless of scheduling restrictions. 3. Not upheld We acknowledged that some viewers might believe that the adults were portrayed as hypocritical in their discussion of social and environmental issues in the ad, and might see the ad as portraying the characters in a negative light. We also acknowledged that some may have found the close-up shots of the adults eating unpleasant. However, we considered that the shots were both exaggerated for effect and we considered viewers would generally accept that the ad was trying to highlight how people’s actions might not necessarily align with their beliefs. We considered that the ad would be seen in the context of Vegan Friendly’s wider aim to increase peoples’ consumption of plant-based food by imploring them to think about the relationship between meat and animals being killed, rather than explicitly vilifying meat eaters. We considered that was reinforced by the tagline make the connection at the end of the ad. We also noted that the adults were not shown killing or harming the animals, and neither was derogatory nor insulting language used towards them for choosing to eat meat. For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was likely to be seen as distasteful by some viewers, but not likely to cause widespread offence by vilifying meat eaters. The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Vegan Friendly UK to avoid using imagery which was likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences.

A bit hard…ASA bans outdoor poster for gay online sex shop

Read more me_asa.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

An outdoor poster ad for Get Hard, an online gay sex toy store, seen in January and February 2022, featured a person wearing a gimp mask and a background of aubergine and peach emojis. Large text superimposed in-front of the person’s face said GET HARD and ANYONE CAN GET INTO IT!. The ad also included the URL http://www.WeGetHard.com. The ASA received two complaints. The complainants challenged whether the ad was: offensive because they believed it was overly sexualised; and inappropriate for display in an untargeted medium where children could see it. Get Hard Ltd said they used the tagline Get Hard. Anyone can. Get into it! to encourage an attitude of passion, grit, empathy, affection and self-care, that could be reached by anyone. Get Hard said they wanted to encourage people to be open with themselves and have fun with the topic of sex, rather than the over serious and frigid attitude they believed was held by many people. ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld The ad was displayed at an outdoor poster site in London, which was an untargeted medium and where the image was likely to be seen by children and adults. The ad featured a person in what appeared to be a gimp mask and large text that stated GET HARD. We understood that a gimp mask was an item of clothing worn by some people during sex who liked to be dominated. We considered that the image of the person wearing a gimp mask, which also emphasised their open mouth, was overtly sexual. We also considered that the text GET HARD was likely to be understood as slang for an erection, which we considered was sexually suggestive. We further understood that the peach and aubergine emojis were commonly used as references to a bottom and a penis, respectively, and often had sexual connotations. Taking the image of the person in the gimp mask together with the references to getting hard and the use of peach and aubergine emojis, we considered that the ad was overtly sexual. We concluded that, because the ad was overtly sexual and was displayed in an untargeted medium where it had the potential to be seen by a large number of people, including children, it was likely to cause serious and widespread offence and was irresponsible. We concluded that the ad was unsuitable for outdoor display and therefore breached the Code. The ad must not appear again in outdoor advertising. We told Get Hard Ltd to ensure that their advertising was suitably targeted and to exercise caution when preparing ads for display in outdoor space.

ASA dismisses complaints about using the word ‘shyster’ in an advert

Read more ssadv.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A TV ad for Legal Utopia, a legal support app, seen on 22 October 2021, featured a voice-over that stated, I’ve discovered Legal Utopia; the app to help you save time and potentially save money 206 It’s accessible, affordable law for all and for all sorts. The voice-over continued by giving examples of when the app could be used, including 206 claims against shoddy shysters, accompanied by a shot of a women speaking angrily on the phone as she examined leaky pipes under a sink.A complainant, who understood the word shyster was a derogatory term used to describe Jewish people, challenged whether the ad was offensive. ASA Assessment: Complaint Not upheldThe term shyster was used in the ad accompanied by footage of a woman speaking angrily on the phone whilst examining leaky pipes under a sink. The ASA considered that the context of the scene, in an ad for an app in which users could seek legal support, implied that the woman was berating a plumber who had carried out substandard work and that she could choose to seek legal recourse through consulting the app. We understood that there were a range of opinions about the etymology of the word shyster, including that it referred to the character Shylock in The Merchant of Venice who was a Jewish moneylender. Others believed the word originated from the German word ScheiÃ?er. We understood that its common usage in British English was to describe an unscrupulous or disreputable person.We sought a view from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who had no concerns about the use of the term in the ad. We considered that in the context used in the ad, most viewers would understand the term shyster as referring to an unscrupulous plumber who had carried out substandard work and failed to correct it. We acknowledged that some viewers may find the term distasteful but we concluded that in the context of the ad it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

ASA bans Gold and Goblins game advert for trivialising domestic violence

Read more me_asa.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

An in-app ad for the mobile app game Gold and Goblins, seen in the Hooked Inc: Fishing Games and Quizzland apps on 17 September 2021, included a video of a woman playing a game on her mobile phone, while behind her a man picked up a chair and drew it back over his head as if to strike the woman with it. The ad then showed the man looking at the phone over the woman’s shoulder as she continued to play. Two complainants, who considered the ad encouraged domestic violence, challenged whether it was offensive and socially irresponsible. Response AppQuantum Publishing Ltd said they would immediately stop running the ad across all their platforms. They said they had intended the ad to be humorous in nature, and apologised for any offence it might have caused. ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld The ASA acknowledged AppQuantum’s willingness to remove the ad. The ad depicted a man about to assault a woman, and we considered that consumers would understand from the context of the setting that it was because her attention was focused on the game she was playing, rather than on the man. We considered that such a reference used in an ad for a mobile app game trivialised and condoned the serious and sensitive subject of domestic violence. This was likely to cause serious and widespread offence, and we considered the ad had not been prepared in a socially responsible manner. The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told AppQuantum Publishing Ltd not to trivialise or condone domestic violence in its advertising.

The advert censor is wound up by jokey coffee mugs with rude words

Read more me_asa.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A paid-for display ad for Banter King, an online novelty goods retailer, seen on 27 April 2021 in the Sky Sports app, featured images of several mugs, three of which stated COCK HUNGRY WHORE, MY SON IS A CUNT HE GETS IT FROM HIS FATHER and LIVE LAUGH TOSSER. A complainant challenged whether the ad was: likely to cause serious or widespread offence; and irresponsibly targeted. Response Banter Group Ltd told us that they had not intended to cause offence. They said that they would be stricter on how and where they placed ads in the future, and had also disabled any products with potentially offensive aspects from appearing on their ads. Sky told us that it was not an ad they would normally allow on their platform, and that it had not been shown because of a proactive scheduling decision. They explained that they had tried to ensure the Sky Sports app only carried suitable advertising by utilising a strong block list and having rules in place across their ad server and third-party vendors, which were designed to prevent unsuitable or offensive ads from appearing. They also told us that they carried out weekly manual checks on ads on their platforms, and removed inappropriate content when they became aware of it. However, they explained that despite those controls occasionally content that did not meet their standards could get through their filters, which had happened in this case. They explained that could occur where ads came through under masked URLs, bypassing their blocks, or where the ads were based on a user’s cookies, cache, or their search history. ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld The Code required marketers to avoid causing serious or widespread offence, and to ensure that ads were appropriately targeted. We acknowledged Banter Groups assurance that they had taken steps to prevent products with the potential to cause offence from appearing in ads in the future. However, consumer research by the ASA and others showed the use of the words such as cunt was so likely to offend, that they should not be used at all in marketing communications even if they were relevant to the product, unless very carefully targeted to an audience that was unlikely to be offended by them. We further considered that the words cock and whore were strong swear words that were also likely to cause serious offence to a general audience. The Sky Sports app was rated as having content suitable for all ages, and we considered it was likely to appeal to a broad audience. The advertiser provided no information on how they targeted their advertising, or if they used interest-based criteria when doing so. We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, and had not been responsibly targeted. The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Banter Group Ltd to take care to avoid causing serious or widespread offence in future and to ensure their ads were appropriately targeted.

ASA disgracefully demands that advertisers snoop on people’s browsing habits

Read more me_asa.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk See report [pdf] from asa.org.uk

ASA is demanding that advertisers snoop on people’s browsing habits so as to build up a profile of people, so as to determine their age and suitability for advertising for gambling, alcohol and frowned upon food products. ASA was particularly considering advertising on websites that appeal to all ages, and so the subject matter of the website is not enough context to determine the age of users.And good luck to the snoopers if they think they can infer that Facebook and Twitter users are over 13s and that Pornhub users are all adults. ASA explained: We have published the findings of our latest proactive monitoring sweep, making world-leading use of Avatar technology to assess the distribution of ads for alcohol, gambling, and high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) products in websites and YouTube channels attracting a mixed-age audience, predominantly composed of adults. As a result of our findings, we are calling on advertisers to make better use of audience and media targeting tools to help minimise children’s exposure to age-restricted ads in mixed-age sites. The monitoring underpinning this project was focused on: Mixed-age online media – consisting of non-logged in websites and YouTube channels, with adults comprising 75%-90% of the audience Dynamically served ads for alcohol, gambling and HFSS products; the underlying technology used to serve these ads enables advertisers to target subsets of the sites’ audience based on data known or inferred about them e.g. their age, location, online browsing interests etc. We used Avatars for the purpose of identifying trends in how these ads are being delivered to adult, child and/or age-unknown audience groups. The Avatars are constructed to reflect the online browsing profile of these age groups, but their automated actions — visiting 250 web pages on both desktop and mobile devices, twice a day — are obviously not indicative of real world online behaviours. This explains why our six uniquely age-categorised Avatars received 27,395 ads , published on 250 sites , over a three week monitoring period. These high figures clearly do not reflect real-world exposure levels to advertising, but the data does give us a good basis for assessing whether age-restricted ads are being targeted away from children in online media attracting a heavily weighted (75%+) adult audience. We found that: Gambling ads were served in broadly similar numbers to Child and Adult Avatars, with no significant skew towards the adult profiles. The Neutral Avatar (which has no browsing history to provide indicative age information) was served noticeably fewer Gambling ads in mixed-age media HFSS ads were served in broadly similar numbers to Child and Adult Avatars, with no significant skew towards the adult profiles, and notably higher numbers of ads served to the Neutral Avatar Alcohol ads were not served to any Avatars Advertisers are not allowed to serve age-restricted ads in children’s media (sites commissioned for children, or where children make up 25% or more of the audience), but these ads are allowed in mixed-age media attracting a heavily weighted (75%+) adult audience, so long as they stick to strict rules to ensure the creative content of the ads don’t appeal to children or exploit their inexperience. We, however, believes it is a legitimate regulatory objective to seek to minimise children’s exposure to age-restricted ads generally and therefore wants to see advertisers of these products use available tools to more effectively target their ads away from children, even where the vast majority of an audience is over 18.