The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) are an independent regulator for advertising all media across the UK. The ASA is the UK’s independent regulator of advertising across all media. They apply the Advertising Codes, which are written by the Committees of Advertising Practice. Their work includes acting on complaints and proactively checking the media to take action against misleading, harmful or offensive advertisements.
2) Explain the process of how to complain about a TV advert which I thought was offensive in some way.
To organize a complaint about an advertisement, I need to:
- Make sure my complaint is covered by the ASA.
- If it is covered by them, I need to either contact them by telephone or submit the complaint online.
- They will give me the name of the person who will handle the case, as they will be my point of contact.
- They do investigation and speak to the advertisers explaining to them about the ad. If it a mistake, then the ASA will have them change it if it's a minor mistake or have them chase down an undelivered mail item on my behalf.
3) Watch the controversial advert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzcRSr6PW_o
4) Explain what happens in the video.
The advertisers have hired a bunch of celebrities to take part in their commercial to help put an end to Famine (a drought in Africa). They gave information and facts, about what Famine is and how drought is affecting children in Africa. At the beginning of the video, all of the actors and actresses are told to say Famine but it is censored to made it seem like the they're saying F-word. They later go into detail about what is it and to help we must visit their website.
5) Explain why this video was banned.
The video was banned because not only did it trick viewers into believing that they were swearing at the beginning of the video, but they also did swear a couple of times throughout the video. A lot of people do not tolerate swearing, especially when companies like this one are trying to get their point across. A lot of people may believe it is absurd for them to swear to get their point across seeing how they are plenty of other ways they can get their points across. I won't blame people to find this advert offensive, since they're an act trying to stop drought. In order to get people on board, the thing they shouldn't do is swear.
That's what can upset people most.
6) Do you think the regulators were right to have banned this advert. Back up your argument with clear points.
I do think they were right to ban this advert. Not only was it offensive to a lot of viewers, but the viewers could have been amongst children. If they're swearing (although it is censored) and they're around children is a very bad example, especially within the advertising committee. Advertisements that are meant to draw people on board are not meant to swear and be offensive. Judging by the amount of celebrities they had, they must have spent a lot of money in hiring them to do this advertisement. I would think they would have got more people to support them if they made sure that celebrities didn't swear. Some of the time, people watch advertisements because they're favourite celebrity is there, and to see that celebrity swearing at a cause may reduce the likeness towards that celebrity and the company.
7) Summarize your main points.
In conclusion, if a marketer is spending a lot of money hiring celebrities and hoping that people will support the organization through the use of swearing is completely unexceptable. There are plenty of other ways to get ideas and adverts heard, but offensiveness in adverts is considered to be a huge waste of money even when they're out to help a lot of people in Africa and stopping the deaths. Perhaps if they advertised this advert using a different technique, it wouldn't get banned for offensiveness and would have got more people to support this cause.
