Simply Media TV Ltd

OFFENSIVE Sunday Life - Michael Stone
COMPLAINTS FROM 3 viewers
BACKGROUND UTV broadcast an advertisement for Sunday Life newspaper in which Michael Stone's book, None Shall Divide Us was to be serialised.
ISSUE The viewers said they had lost relatives as a direct result of Mr. Stone's crimes, and complained to UTV direct. They objected to the principle of him making money from his crimes and also to the deep hurt and offence they felt when the advertising appeared. One viewer explained "people can choose to buy the newspaper or his book but that choice is taken away when the advertisement appears on our TV". Another said that she and her family were deeply upset when watching something like Coronation Street on TV, they were faced with her brother's murderer promoting his book without any prior warning.The ITC noted that UTV had received the complaints direct. It invited UTV to comment on what the viewers had said and on the creative treatment as a whole. Of particular concern was Mr Stone's nonchalant, somewhat provocative reference to having written "an explosive book on my life as a loyalist gunman".
ASSESSMENT On receipt of the viewer complaints UTV immediately removed the advertising from air. It told the ITC that it had spoken and written to some of the families of Mr Stone's victims to express its regret that they had been offended by the advertisement. It said that it had sound procedures and experience in dealing with sensitive issues such as this but on this particular occasion there had been a misunderstanding between two departments and material they deemed to have been unsuitable had been broadcast in error. UTV apologised for the error and emphasised how promptly and without equivocation it had acted once it realised what had happened. Its procedure had, it said, been revised to ensure that a similar situation would not be repeated. The ITC sympathised with the concerns viewers expressed about criminals making money from their crimes. However, the Advertising Code does not rule this out, providing the advertising complies in all respects with the letter and the spirit of the Code. There is no requirement for advertisements to carry warnings about their content, as Licensees are required by the Code to make careful judgements so as to avoid the risk of causing harm or offence.In this case, however, the content of the commercial had clearly been offensive and unsuitable. The ITC acknowledged and commended UTV on the steps it had taken to remove the advertising, to make contact with the viewers who had complained and to tighten its procedures. It noted that this was an unfortunate error which caused deep offence and hurt to some viewers but that it was out of character with the channel's good compliance record.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld in part. Breach of ITC Code Rule 6.1.

OFFENSIVE Irn Bru - baby Leith Agency
COMPLAINTS FROM 53 viewers
BACKGROUND An advertisement showed a midwife trying to coax a baby out of its mother's womb with a can of Irn Bru. Suddenly, the baby's hand appeared, grabbed the can and could be heard opening it and drinking the contents. The empty can then shot out of the mother and into a rubbish bin. A television monitor showed the baby burp.
ISSUE Eight viewers complained that the advertisement was unsuitable for children because it showed a woman in labour, five viewers believed it trivialised childbirth and could be upsetting to pregnant women or those who experienced difficulties during pregnancy. Another viewer, who had recently lost her baby, found the advertisement distressing and believed other women in her position would too. The remaining viewers objected to the advertisement on grounds of taste.
ASSESSMENT The ITC considered that any image of childbirth could be upsetting for viewers with personal experience of difficult pregnancies and/or labour and sympathised with the viewer who had lost her baby. However, in this instance, it did not believe that viewers generally were likely to associate such a far-fetched portrayal of childbirth with real-life experience. It appreciated that some viewers found the material distasteful but there was no evidence to suggest that it had caused serious or widespread offence. With regard to complaints about children seeing the advertisement, the ITC considered that scenes involving childbirth were common in family viewing time and therefore the material shown in this advertisement was consistent with what viewers might expect to see on early evening television. Accordingly, it judged that the 'ex-kids' restriction imposed by the BACC was sufficient.
CONCLUSION Complaints not upheld.

HARMFUL Inappropriate Scheduling Fox Kids
UK COMPLAINTS FROM 6 viewers
BACKGROUND The Irn Bru "Baby" commercial referred to above, was shown on the children's channel Fox Kids UK.
ISSUE Viewers complained that the advertisement was unsuitable for broadcast on this channel. ASSESSMENT Fox Kids explained that there were two Irn Bru commercials: one with an 'ex-kids' restriction and one that was suitable for children. Due to human error the 'ex-kids' advertisement was shown. As soon as the channel became aware of the mistake, it took immediate steps to ensure that it would not be shown again. Fox Kids assured the ITC that it would review its compliance procedures in order to prevent such errors happening in future.The ITC noted that Fox Kids had taken prompt action to avoid further errors, but nevertheless judged that the scheduling of the advertisement was in breach of the ITC Code.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 7.3.7 and RASA 4.2.3.

HARMFUL Halfords - chimps Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO
COMPLAINTS FROM 126 viewers
BACKGROUND An advertisement for Halfords showed chimpanzees in tracksuits playing with bikes and cars inside a Halfords store. The endline stated "with our deals you pay peanuts so we thought we'd give you monkeys".
ISSUE Viewers complained that:1 the chimpanzees used in the advertisement could be seen "grinning" which, for chimpanzees, is an expression of fear rather than pleasure2 showing the chimpanzees dressed in clothes and performing tricks outside their natural environment was degrading and exploitative. And detracted from the fact that they were an endangered wild species. Also, it could encourage captive breeding and lead people to think they are suitable pets3 training chimpanzees to perform as shown often involved taking them from their mothers at a young age and using cruel training methods to get the desired effectsTwo of the complaints came from pressure groups, one called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA UK) and another from Captive Animals Prevention Society (CAPS).
ASSESSMENT The advertiser argued that the ITC Code did not prohibit the use of animals in advertising and, although the complainants, particularly PETA UK and CAPS, advocated a ban for moral reasons, if the ITC upheld the complaints it would not be based on the Code and would therefore be an infringement of the advertiser's right to free expression. It referred to a recent poll conducted by ICM which found that the PG Tips chimps were the favourite British advertising characters of all time. Four consumer research groups were held prior to production of the Halfords advertisement and no concerns were raised about the use of the chimpanzees. It believed this evidence showed that the general public did not share the complainants' concerns about the use of trained chimpanzees in advertising.The commercial was filmed in the United States and the advertiser said it used the services of a well-known and long established company that specialised in training animals to perform in films and advertisements by mimicking their handlers. It provided a letter from the American Humane Association (AHA) - the US version of the RSPCA - which stated that one of its representatives was present throughout the shoot and ensured that the official guidelines were followed. It also provided a medical certificate issued by a veterinary surgeon who checked the chimpanzees after the shoot, and it showed that they were in good health.The advertiser and agency said they would not have "countenanced creating a television advertisement that involved cruelty to the chimpanzees, or caused them pain or distress". It explained that the AHA monitored the training of animals for film purposes and the company used for this advertisement was signed up to its guidelines. With regard to concerns that "grinning" was an expression of fear, the advertiser explained that this was achieved by teaching the chimpanzees to mimic their handlers and not by trying to induce any particular emotion. The ITC received further comments from an experienced animal trainer who said that chimpanzees in captivity behaved differently to those in the wild and therefore should not be judged in the same way. The "fear grin" was evident among young chimps in the wild but not among those born and bred in captivity. Chimpanzees in captivity that had been worked and trained for the entertainment industry were "eager and co-operative in training sessions and loved to be around and mimic their human caregivers".Although the ITC appreciated that the complainants had a strong belief that the use of chimpanzees in filming was wrong, it did not consider there were sufficient grounds to take action against this particular advertisement. It judged that the advertiser had been responsible and taken all necessary steps to ensure that current guidelines on the use of animals in advertising were fully complied with.
CONCLUSION Complaints not upheld.

MISLEADING Hewlett Packard Publicis
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer
BACKGROUND An advertisement for the Compaq Presario 2511 computer showed a man frustrated at the slow speed of his computer when playing on-line games. It advised potential customers needing a faster computer to play games on-line or manage their finances, to upgrade to the 2511.
ISSUE A viewer complained that the advertising was misleading for saying that a faster computer alone would give a better experience of on-line games when in fact a faster internet connection would achieve this. The viewer believed that the graphics shown on the computer screen in the advertisement signified that the player had a slow internet connection. Upgrading his computer would not change that.
ASSESSMENT The BACC had approved the advertisement on the understanding that the Intel Pentium 4 Processor in the computer would allow faster frame rates, better detail and higher resolution during game play.The advertising agency argued that the power of the player's PC was an important factor in gaming performance when playing on-line, and that running complex games on less powerful computers would diminish the gaming experience, regardless of band width. The agency believed it was reasonable to assume that most gamers using the kind of graphics shown in the advertisement would already have a fast internet connection.The advertisement made no reference to speed of internet connection. The ITC judged that it was capable of misleading viewers for implying that the power of a PC on its own would enable a player to have a faster and superior gaming experience. The advertising encouraged viewers to upgrade their PC, although this in itself would not necessarily achieve the benefits advertised.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.1

MISLEADING Hutchison 3 Mobile TBWA\London
COMPLAINTS FROM 4 viewers
BACKGROUND Advertising for Hutchison 3 showed people using the video call function of its new mobile technology. ISSUE Viewers complained that the advertising was misleading because it showed people making video calls without wearing headphones. In their experience video calls were inaudible unless the headphones were used.
ASSESSMENT The advertiser explained that it was possible to make a video call without the use of headphones, but the low volume meant that it would only be audible in a quiet room. It therefore advised that headphones should be used for "optimum performance".The ITC considered that the advertisements were misleading because they misrepresented how the product worked by not making it clear that headphones were required in most circumstances. It required that the advertising should not be shown again in its current form.
CONCLUSION Complaints upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.2.

MISLEADING QVC Copper and magnet jewellery
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 viewer and staff monitoring
BACKGROUND A jewellery presentation on QVC for copper and magnetic bangles and rings discussed their popularity and the benefits that people believe they have brought to their sense of well-being.
ISSUE The complainant believed there was no scientific proof of any benefits from wearing copper. The ITC was additionally concerned that the presentation gave the impression that wearers could receive benefits from magnets.
ASSESSMENT QVC said that the items were sold as jewellery. It provided details of a number of published articles and books backing the belief that there were benefits that could be obtained from wearing copper and magnets. It considered it was acceptable to refer to this belief provided the presentations did not make categorical or specific medical claims.Although the presenters did not make categorical claims about any health benefits from wearing copper or magnets, the ITC noted that they did say it was worth trying on the grounds that it was not until someone had used the products that they would know whether or not they benefited. The presenters referred to what they called the "mythology" surrounding the use of copper; studies and testimonials that had explored the relationship between aches and pains and copper - which they highlighted as being of particular interest to people with rheumatism or arthritis; and the "comfort" for someone knowing that if they were wearing it they would be able to receive whatever benefits it could give. Regarding magnets, the presenters said that they were believed to increase blood flow by stimulating the area on which they were worn, bringing extra oxygen and warmth, all of which were productive in relieving aches and pains.The ITC considered that these statements gave a strong impression that the copper and magnetic jewellery shown could help people with rheumatism or arthritis, but that there was insufficient conclusive, objective medical proof to back this up. It required that advertising should not discuss any supposed benefits of copper and magnets unless the broadcaster could provide such proof. This is consistent with the ASA's approach to print and other advertising. QVC confirmed that it had changed its presentation of such products and that it would continue to work with the ITC to ensure that its broadcasts complied with the ITC's code.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld and staff intervention. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.2.1 and 8.1.1

MISLEADING Auctionworld Superimposed text
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 competitor
BACKGROUND During it's auctions, Auctionworld broadcast a line of superimposed text promoting its sister channel Phoneworld.tv
ISSUE The superimposed text stated:"Phones for �1, only on Phoneworld.tv Ch 666"The competitor complained that Phoneworld.tv was not the only channel to offer mobile phones for sale for �1 and provided the ITC with evidence to prove it.
ASSESSMENT When asked, Auctionworld said that it had monitored all shopping channels and had not seen any channel selling mobile phones on air for �1 either before or after the ITC had brought the matter to its attention. However, in view of the evidence presented by the competitor, Auctionworld subsequently offered to remove the word "only" from the line of superimposed text.The ITC appreciated the lengths that Auctionworld had gone to in order to check the claim and the steps it had taken to correct the superimposed text. However, it judged that the claim had nonetheless been misleading.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rule 5.1.

MISCELLANEOUS The Circle - Free Horoscope Line BDP Media Solutions
COMPLAINTS FROM 1 competitor
BACKGROUND In Bulletin 7 (February 2003) the ITC published its decision on a competitor complaint about advertising for The Circle free horoscope line (The Circle). It had indirectly promoted a live tarot service, accessed via a premium rate telephone number given during the free horoscope message.The competitor, Michaela Tarot, contacted the ITC again alleging that the advertising for The Circle broadcast on Living TV, was in breach of the Code in the same way as before.
ISSUE Rule 3.2 of The ITC Code of Advertising Standards states:No advertisement may indirectly publicise an unacceptable product or service.Rule 10.3 provides that there are very limited exceptions to the prohibition of advertisements for products or services concerned with (a) the occult or (b) psychic practices. One of the categories defined by the ITC as acceptable is: 1) Advertisements for tarot-based prediction services where:� the service is pre-recorded and this is explained in the advertising and at the start of the recording and � the service is for entertainment only and this is clear from the advertising and is explained at the start of the recording and � all references to tarot in the service and the advertising are qualified to make clear that it is not a "real" tarot service (e.g. "tarot-based reading" would be acceptable) and � the service does not contain any material which might feel threatening to callers, or which might harm, offend or distress them.
ASSESSMENT The ITC asked BACC to explain why the advertising continued to be broadcast in spite of the ITC's previous intervention against it. Stream Plc, the company that provides The Circle service, said that in the week beginning 12 May it had advised its network provider that there might be an increase in traffic due to new advertising. The network provider mistakenly interpreted this as an instruction to replace the compliant premium rate service with the former uncompliant message referring to live readings. It apologised for the human error and said that it had remedied the situation as soon as possible.
CONCLUSION Complaint upheld. Breach of ITC Code Rules 3.2 and 10.3.

BTSA Profile
Rules of Membership
Compliance with Rules
News
Education Centre
Member Directory
Contact Us
Useful Links