|
|
|
 |
SOUTH AFRICA |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This advert, which is part of the "Pretty But Tough" campaign for the Hyundai Tucson by Cape Town's The Jupiter Drawing Room, was banned by South African regulators following complaints that it promoted dangerous and ecologically unsound behaviour. The commercial had been shown widely on national television since early 2007, but was ordered to be immediately withdrawn after it was found in breach of advertising laws (see Adjudication below). "Pretty But Tough" is part of a provocative advertising strategy by Hyundai that has been credited with significantly improving sales of the cars in South Africa; in the words of Jupiter themselves, this current campaign aims to generate "sex appeal" around the brand through its "artful and ironic blend of stunts."
Adjudication of the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa:
Complaint:
The complainants submitted, in essence, that the commercial is both irresponsible and offensive in that it promotes cruelty to animals.
The complainants submitted that it would be dangerous for children to imitate the commercial and shows needless cruelty to animals. The second complainant submitted that there are a number of threatened and endangered scorpion species whose wilful killing is regarded as unlawful. This increases threats to biodiversity.
Response:
The advertising agency The Jupiter Drawing Room, on behalf of the respondent, submitted a detailed response, which will be dealt with more fully below.
ASA Directorate Ruling:
The ASA Directorate considered the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.
Clause 14 of Section II states, inter alia, that advertisements addressed to or likely to influence children should not contain any statement or visual presentation which might result in harming them, mentally, morally, physically or emotionally. It also stipulates that children should not be brought under the impression that it is safe to be in certain surroundings.
Clause 1.2 of Section I, states that all advertising should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the consumer.
Essentially, the complainants raised two broad issues:
- That the commercial condones cruelty to animals, and
- That children might emulate the action of stepping on a scorpion with bare feet.
Accordingly, should the Directorate find that the commercial encourages cruelty to animals, or encourages children to emulate harmful behaviour, it follows that the commercial is irresponsible in terms of the Code.
The respondent submitted, inter alia, that this execution is a simple but metaphorically rich, hyperbolic dramatisation of the "Pretty but Tough" concept. Scorpions have long been used as a metaphor for something ominous and violent. The commercial does not vilify the scorpion as a creature but simply serves to reflect the status of the scorpion as it has been ensconced in public conception.
Furthermore, the respondent submitted that the commercial is directed at adults and is aired accordingly. It is not screened during children's television or on channels that are dedicated to children. It is aimed at the audience of 20+ years who would be in a position to purchase the product. It also submitted that children are exposed to stunts and conduct which is much more violent than the scenes in the commercial. Young children would have parental guidance. Parents let their children watch movies like Home Alone, Harry Potter, Matrix and Alias and reasonable people (including children) know that a normal person cannot perform all the stunts that are performed by these characters.
Clause 3.2 of Section I states, inter alia, “In assessing an advertisement’s conformity in terms of this Code, the primary test applied will be that of the probable impact of the advertisement as a whole upon those who are likely to see or hear it” (our emphasis).
While the Directorate understands that the respondent does not aim this commercial at children, the fact remains that children are likely to be exposed to the commercial while watching family time television with their parents. Accordingly the fact that the commercial is aimed at adults does not remove the concern about children. In addition, movies such as those referred to by the respondent carry age restrictions or warnings, which allow the parent to exercise control. In contrast, television commercials do not carry such warnings, and parents are therefore not afforded the same luxury of knowing beforehand what material will be screened.
Clause 4.2.3 of Section II defines “hyperbole” as obvious untruths, harmless parody or exaggerations, intended to catch the eye or to amuse. This is permissible provided that it is clearly humorous or hyperbolic and not likely to be understood as making literal claims for the advertised product.
The Directorate notes that the commercial is not exaggerated or unrealistic and could easily be interpreted literally. There is no obvious untruth or humour in the commercial that would indicate it is a hyperbolic execution. The argument of “hyperbole” therefore falls away.
In Mazda/ Bothma M (26 November 2003) the Advertising Standards Committee (the ASC) considered a commercial showing “Poacher Dan” killing various animals. It ruled that although the respondent claimed the contrary, there was no evidence that the commercial contrasts the bad with the good. There was no message conveyed that it is bad to kill animals or destroy nature and that for this reason nature conservation is the correct thing.
The ASC noted that the message that would remain in the mind of a child is that it is not objectionable to kill animals. Children would attempt to emulate the commercial with the risk of moral or mental harm. It contained images that might reasonably be thought to encourage or condone cruelty or irresponsible behaviour towards animals.
Similarly in this matter, the commercial shows violence against a scorpion and it is flighted during family viewing time when the audience is most likely to include of children. The message that will remain in the mind of a child is that it is not objectionable to kill insects. The Directorate accepts that most people would not consider killing a scorpion, and many other insects, as reprehensible. Nonetheless, the commercial does illustrate a disregard of insect life and ecological issues. There is also a possibility that children who happen across a scorpion might emulate the behaviour, even more so if one wants to be considered “tough”, as in the payoff line “pretty but tough”. This not only raises concerns about protection of scorpions, but about the child’s own safety, as scorpion stings are harmful.
The respondent relied, inter alia, on the ruling Hyundai Tucson / J Bachmann & Others / 1873-6 (10 March 2005), where the ASC considered and dismissed complaints against another commercial in this campaign, which featured a woman opening a beer bottle with her eye socket.
In that matter, the ASC found the commercial to be sufficiently hyperbolic and ruled, “It is not likely to be understood as making a literal claim to the effect that human beings are capable of opening beer tops with their eye socket”. The ASC also found that the model’s actions were not portrayed in a manner that appears natural, and that any child who attempted to emulate the behaviour of opening a beer bottle with his eye “would find that it was in fact impossible before reaching the point of damaging an eye”.
The significant difference between that commercial and the one currently under question is that the scenario depicted in the current commercial is easy to emulate, and in doing so, a child could cause harm to himself or the ecosystem. Unlike the 10 March 2005 matter, the harm would be done before realising the consequences.
The Directorate also accepts the metaphorical connotations of a scorpion. However, scorpions are actual insects, occurring commonly in South Africa, and stepping barefoot on them may have actual harmful or ecologically concerning consequences.
The Directorate also acknowledges that scorpions often induce fear. However, this commercial shows people and children how to dispose of the creature in a manner that might harm the environment or person/child emulating this action.
Such advertising cannot be said to be responsible to the consumer. Given the above, the advertisement is in contravention of Clause 1.2 of Section I of the Code. In light of the above finding, the respondent is required to:
- Withdraw the commercial in its current format;
- The process to withdraw the commercial must be actioned with immediate effect on receipt of the ruling;
- The withdrawal of the commercial must be completed within the deadlines stipulated by Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide; and
- The commercial may not be used again in its current format.
It is not necessary to consider the other clauses at this time. The complaints are upheld.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
