In this blog post, I am going to look at the advertising regulatory companies (The CAP and ASA) which help to monitor and set standards of advertising material.
CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice)
The CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice) is the organisation which creates the rules and regulations of advertising (The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code), in which the ASA regulate their standards by.
"responsible for writing and maintaining the UK Advertising Codes and providing authoritative advice on the rules"
Reflecting on the CAP logo, it is very simple and to the point by the "tick" which portrays a message that the company is correct, up to standards and verified in terms of the service they offer to the audience, which is to create guidelines on the use of media within the UK.
ASA (Advertising Standards Authority)
The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) is a regulatory body which which governs the media within the UK and offers a service to the public which allows viewers to complain about any issues which may have affected them in media products within their remit (products/services they offer according to their regulatory standards/restrictions)
The ASA's remit applies to products such as;
- Magazines and newspapers
- Radio and TV
- Television shopping channels
- Posters
- Cinema
- Direct Mail (advertising sent through the post and addressed to you personally)
- Internet (including a company's own marketing on its own website, social networking page, as well as in paid-for space)
- leaflets and brochures
- commercial email and mobile message
- CD ROMs, DVDs, videos and faxes
- Sales promotions (special offers, prize draws and competitions).
Reflecting upon the ASA logo, it has the same lettering, logo shape, etc as the CAP, but it's tick is in a different colour. This is to represent that the two companies work together in maintaining the regulating body for advertising and media.
The colour choice of red for the ASA gives off a warning or danger sign, which relates to the service they offer as they ensure danger is identified and removed from air. Also the color red symbolizes the stop sign in traffic lights, which shows that they stop danger from being shown on air through media products.
According to research and stats recorded by the ASA, the top 10 reasons as to why viewers complain are;
- misleading information (based on price, before and after shots, editing, statistics, post-production techniques, etc)
- depiction of women
- depiction of men
- depiction of animals
- depiction of children
- sex
- religion
- language
- race
- disability
When advertisers try to portray a message to it's audience, it tries to use stereotypical (not based on reality/cliche) thoughts and ideology, e.g. "all blonde women are dumb", which may cause offense to some members of the public, in which they can take action upon the advert.
But not all members of the public are the same. Some opinions are subjective which means that it depends on the viewer and advertisers point of view on what they think of it and what message they are trying to portray. This is why when the ASA investigate a complaint, they carry out a process which investigates the matter and allows the company of the advert to appeal their point as to why the advert is not offensive/harmful - out of advertising regulations.
Looking at examples (Paddy Power plc - July 2010)
The advert
A TV ad for a bookmaker showed a game of football being played by two teams of blindfolded men, using a ball with a bell inside it. The ad opened with a shot of a kitbag marked “Blind Wanderers FC”, then showed the players mid-game. One player kicked the ball off the pitch but then a cat, wearing a bell on its collar, ran onto the pitch, with its bell ringing.
The referee was about to blow his whistle, when one of the men was shown taking a kick. There was a thud and loud meow, although no contact between the player and the cat was shown on screen. A man in a suit appeared on the pitch, patted the shoulder of the player who had taken the kick and said: “Paddy Power can’t get Tiddles back, there’s nothing we can do about that, but we can get you your money back with our money-back specials” and handed the player some bank notes.
There was a shot of the cat walking along the branch of a tree, meowing. The final voice-over said: “Check ’em out before you bet at Paddy Power ...” and the player taking the kick was shown again, in slow motion, and a faint meow was again heard in the background.
Issue
1,089 viewers objected to this ad.
220 viewers objected that the ad was offensive to blind people
1,070 viewers objected that the ad was offensive and harmful, because it might encourage or condone cruelty to animals.
Final action/decision taken
The ASA said it was not offensive in itself to create an advert referring to people with a disability.
Paddy Power said it featured an action “so unlikely that it was absurd”. Paddy Power said the advert did not show the cat being kicked or suffering any violence or cruelty. It was clearly and deliberately shown to be unharmed at the end of the item.
Paddy Power had chosen a blind football match to promote a lesser-known sport – the World Blind Football Championships were going to take place in 2010. Paddy Power produced a letter of support from the manager of the England Blind Football Team. All the players in the ad were actual blind football players, many of whom had represented the national side.
The ASA’s final decision was:
1. The action in the ad would be interpreted by most viewers as a humorous depiction of a fictional situation, with the humour derived from surreal and improbable circumstances, when an unforeseeable and accidental
action occurred.
2. It was unlikely to be seen by most viewers as malicious or implying that blind people were likely to cause harm to animals whilst playing football.
3. The ad was unlikely to be seen as humiliating, stigmatizing or undermining to blind people and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence
My reflection
I personally agree with the decision and comments made by the ASA, as the advert did not target or stereotype the blind disability with any comments/actions which may offend them.
The purpose of the advert was trying to explain to the viewers on not making any irrational choices on betting by going in with a "blind eye" (not exploring all concepts), so what better way is to include people with a blindness, but make the positive out of a negative aspect by creating a sport (which the company uses to make odds).
Another point towards my view is that the advert did not physically show any harm to the animal, so I feel there was no blatant animal cruelty. That was the main aspect which caused many complaints was the "animal cruelty" part of the cat being kicked. So to ensure that the audience were satisfied by the advert, they should have removed and replaced the scene with the cat and put in a different, more friendly joke to help get a comedic and memorable reaction from the audience.
Also the advert show in the end that the cat seemed perfectly fine, so there was no harm towards the animal. All the company tried to do was add in some humour into the service they are promoting, and they ensured that at the end of the advert, all of the tension/equilibrium was maintained by the cat being okay.
Finally, as the advert had used a real blind football team, in which they were not offended by to produce this advert, I feel it should not affect any other member of the public if they see no harm towards themselves personally.
Bibliography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Authority_(United_Kingdom) (03/12/2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_CAP_Code (03/12/2012)
http://www.asa.org.uk/ (03/12/2012)
http://www.cap.org.uk/ (03/12/2012)
http://www.asa.org.uk/~/media/Files/ASA/Adcheck/ASA-AdCheck_BQ1%20(2).ashx (03/12/2012)
http://www.asa.org.uk/ (03/12/2012)
http://www.cap.org.uk/ (03/12/2012)
http://www.asa.org.uk/~/media/Files/ASA/Adcheck/ASA-AdCheck_BQ1%20(2).ashx (03/12/2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment