Koosday Event [2014]
This ad advertises the Koosday Event but also promotes excessive intoxication with the quote “I DON’T WANT TO DIE SOBER” – Jordan Belfort. This linked with an image of Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in The Wolf of Wall Street where he is clearly severely intoxicated lying against a car and this being an ad stick on a car bonnet on a university campus where it could encourage young people to drink irresponsibly.
The response from Koosday is that a designer had created the ad and forwarded it to Uni Car Ads without Koosday Events seeing it so they assume no responsibility and that the ad was no longer an issue. The complaint was upheld and ASA has told Koosday Events that they make future ads to be more responsible.
I agree with what ASA have done as there isn’t much of an issue because they ads where no longer there and to just make sure that their ads are more responsible from now on.
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/7/Koosday-Events-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_270716.aspx#.Vzw2i17F9sA
Drop Dead Clothing [2011]
This ad is an online clothing retailer which featured a model wearing clothes like bikinis and denim shorts. The complaint was that the model looked severely underweight and could promote anorexia.
Drop Dead Clothing defended themselves by saying that the model was wearing size eight which is a regular size and is there most popular size. Despite that ASA upheld the complaint as her “hip, rib and collar bones were highly visible” suggesting her bone structure also mentioning her thigh bones are very prominent referring to the denim shorts. Finally stating that a combinations of things like the skinny model, her poses, clothing and make up made her look very underweight though deemed it to not cause offence but rather be socially irresponsible. The ad must not be used in its current form and make sure their images are socially responsible.
I agree that the image would unlikely cause harm or offence to anyone, except the one complainant, but is still socially irresponsible because their audience is that of a younger age presumably mid-teens to early 20s. They may believe that this kind of body image is something to aspire to which could cause negative effects.
“The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) but not 4.1 (Harm and Offence).”
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2011/11/Drop-Dead-Clothing-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_164206.aspx#.Vzw7sl7F9sA
No Added Sugar Ltd
This ad was on a clothing catalogue and advertised children wearing plastic bags over their heads or near proximity of their heads to show a theme about rubbish and the things people throw away.
6 complainants said that these ads were irresponsible and could be imitated by children, which would physically harm them but the company that ran the ad, No Sugar Added Ltd, argued that they were not irresponsible because adults would be looking through these catalogues to buy clothes for children and the images were just a “playful tribute” to the rubbish theme.
The complaint was upheld by ASA because despite understanding that these catalogues would be aimed at adults and are both socially responsible selves and understand the “tongue-in-cheek” meaning there still would be circumstances where a child could access these catalogues and imitate the actions which would most likely cause harm to themselves.
I believe that No Added Sugar should have been more aware of how harmful these images could possibly be that a bag over a child head would physically hurt that child and hurt them because of that. ASA made the right decision but also stated they understood the concept and though would not be harmful to adults it could still find its way to children.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/feb/24/children-playing-plastic-bags-criticised
http://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2010/03/asa-adjudications-snapshot-february-2010?cc_lang=en#other OTHER – 9
This ad advertises the Koosday Event but also promotes excessive intoxication with the quote “I DON’T WANT TO DIE SOBER” – Jordan Belfort. This linked with an image of Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in The Wolf of Wall Street where he is clearly severely intoxicated lying against a car and this being an ad stick on a car bonnet on a university campus where it could encourage young people to drink irresponsibly.
The response from Koosday is that a designer had created the ad and forwarded it to Uni Car Ads without Koosday Events seeing it so they assume no responsibility and that the ad was no longer an issue. The complaint was upheld and ASA has told Koosday Events that they make future ads to be more responsible.
I agree with what ASA have done as there isn’t much of an issue because they ads where no longer there and to just make sure that their ads are more responsible from now on.
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/7/Koosday-Events-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_270716.aspx#.Vzw2i17F9sA
Drop Dead Clothing [2011]
This ad is an online clothing retailer which featured a model wearing clothes like bikinis and denim shorts. The complaint was that the model looked severely underweight and could promote anorexia.
Drop Dead Clothing defended themselves by saying that the model was wearing size eight which is a regular size and is there most popular size. Despite that ASA upheld the complaint as her “hip, rib and collar bones were highly visible” suggesting her bone structure also mentioning her thigh bones are very prominent referring to the denim shorts. Finally stating that a combinations of things like the skinny model, her poses, clothing and make up made her look very underweight though deemed it to not cause offence but rather be socially irresponsible. The ad must not be used in its current form and make sure their images are socially responsible.
I agree that the image would unlikely cause harm or offence to anyone, except the one complainant, but is still socially irresponsible because their audience is that of a younger age presumably mid-teens to early 20s. They may believe that this kind of body image is something to aspire to which could cause negative effects.
“The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) but not 4.1 (Harm and Offence).”
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2011/11/Drop-Dead-Clothing-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_164206.aspx#.Vzw7sl7F9sA
No Added Sugar Ltd
This ad was on a clothing catalogue and advertised children wearing plastic bags over their heads or near proximity of their heads to show a theme about rubbish and the things people throw away.
6 complainants said that these ads were irresponsible and could be imitated by children, which would physically harm them but the company that ran the ad, No Sugar Added Ltd, argued that they were not irresponsible because adults would be looking through these catalogues to buy clothes for children and the images were just a “playful tribute” to the rubbish theme.
The complaint was upheld by ASA because despite understanding that these catalogues would be aimed at adults and are both socially responsible selves and understand the “tongue-in-cheek” meaning there still would be circumstances where a child could access these catalogues and imitate the actions which would most likely cause harm to themselves.
I believe that No Added Sugar should have been more aware of how harmful these images could possibly be that a bag over a child head would physically hurt that child and hurt them because of that. ASA made the right decision but also stated they understood the concept and though would not be harmful to adults it could still find its way to children.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/feb/24/children-playing-plastic-bags-criticised
http://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2010/03/asa-adjudications-snapshot-february-2010?cc_lang=en#other OTHER – 9