Page 59

Neither was the ground regarding substantial flaw in process made out. The Independent Reviewer said: “the Board has provided ample opportunity for the complainants and the advertiser to put their views and has taken those respective views into account”. Regarding the second ground (substantial flaw in determination) the Independent Reviewer indicated that the Board should have: “provided a sounder basis on which to reach a conclusion than the unsupported assumption advanced in this case”, and that the Board’s: “conclusion was dependent upon facts of which there is no evidence and it did not provide any other basis for reaching its conclusion”. The Independent Reviewer recommended that the Board reconsider its decision: “against the requirement in section 2.3 of the Code having regard to the product being advertised and the audience that will see the advertisement, namely all members of society, and reach a conclusion that is based upon a consideration of the impact of the advertisement on that audience”. Following detailed reconsideration, the Board found that the advertisement did not breach any of the Codes on any grounds and dismissed the complaint.

58

Overall, the Board considered that the particular images in the advertisement and the overall impact of the advertisement treat a mildly sexualised image and a sex related product with sensitivity to the concerns of the broad community, including children. The Board determined that the advertisement does treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and that the advertisement does not breach section 2.3 of the Code.

Unilever An advertiser requested review of a Board determination to uphold a complaint about their animated television advertisement for the Bubble Gum Berry Lava Paddle Pop and the Hero or Villain Choc Orange Paddle Pop (case number 0454/11). The Board considered complaints under the Responsible Children’s Marketing Initiative of the Australian Food and Beverage Industry (RCMI) with particular reference to sections dealing with Advertising Messaging and Use of Popular Personalities and Characters , and determined that the advertisement breached those provisions of the RCMI. The Board’s view was: “although the advertisement did not depict any unhealthy eating choices or practices, it did not reference good dietary habits and was not in the context of a healthy lifestyle that would encourage good dietary habits.”

The Board then looked at all sections of the AANA Code for Advertising and Marketing to Children, and relevant sections of the AANA Food and Beverages Advertising and Marketing Communications Code, finding no breaches. The advertiser requested review on the basis that: (i) the Board introduced new evidence in its determination, (ii) there was a substantial flaw in the process followed by the Board. That the Board did not consider relevant facts relating to the advertisement referencing a healthy lifestyle and encouraging good dietary habits and physical activity and did not consider the advertisement in the context of a broader marketing strategy. The Independent Reviewer discounted the claim that the Board introduced new evidence and said that Unilever’s claim represented an opinion by Unilever and does not adduce evidence that the Board failed to consider relevant facts in this regard. The Independent Reviewer recommended that the Board’s original decision to uphold the complaints be confirmed, concluding that there had been no substantial flaw in the process by which the determination had been made.

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