Page 57

Cases reviewed in 2011 People who originally complained about an advertisement, or the advertiser who the complaint was made against, may ask for a review of the determination if they are unhappy about a Board determination about the particular advertisement. Since 2008, when the Independent Review process commenced, 17 cases have been considered by the Independent Reviewers. During 2011, five cases were accepted and reviewed by the Independent Reviewer. In three of these cases, the Independent Reviewer recommended that the Advertising Standards Board review its initial determination. Following further consideration, the Board confirmed its original determination in two cases and changed its initial determination in one case. The Independent Reviewer recommended that the Board’s initial determination be confirmed in the other two cases. From receipt of the request for review, to publication of the case report , the five cases took between seven and 23 business days to complete. This time includes: • two days for the Independent Reviewer to confirm initial acceptance of the case • three days in which the relevant parties to the case can prepare their response to the request for review

56

• I ndependent Reviewer consideration of all relevant information (the advertisement, all original complaints, advertiser response to complaints, Board determination, request for review, responses to request for review, other relevant case reports, other relevant supporting information provided by parties), and • if required, reconsideration of the case by the Advertising Standards Board.

Rivers Rivers requested review of a Board determination about their identical print (case number 0098/11) and mail (case number 0099/11) advertisements showing female legs protruding from under a sofa, accompanied by the words “10 deadly deals”. The Board upheld complaints under section 2.2 of the AANA Code of Ethics on the basis that “the advertisement depicted the consequences of a violent act, was suggestive of sexualised violence, and was not relevant to the advertised product”. In this case the advertiser disputed the Board finding on the ground that there was a substantial flaw in the determination. Specifically, the advertiser submitted that:

“a majority of the Board improperly expands section 2.2 to cover situations where an image, in some viewers’ minds, depict the consequence of a violent act. Such a test is clearly beyond the language of section 2.2 and cannot be used to support a finding of a breach thereof ”. The Independent Reviewer agreed with the advertiser, saying that: “although the Board found that there was an inference that the body had met a violent death, it made no finding of actual presentation or portrayal of violence which is required by section 2.2”. The Independent Reviewer recommended that the Board reconsider its original determination Taking into account the Independent Reviewer recommendation and reasoning, and all other documentation, the Board changed its original determination, acknowledging that the advertisement does not present or portray violence and thus does not breach section 2.2 of the Code

McDonalds An original complainant requested review of the Board’s determination to dismiss complaints about the McDonalds Happy Meal website (case number 0103/11) on the basis that there was a substantial flaw in the Board’s determination.

Review of Operations 2011

Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2011  

The Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) administers Australia's national system of self‐regulation in relation to both public and competitor...

Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2011  

The Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) administers Australia's national system of self‐regulation in relation to both public and competitor...

Advertisement