ASA going after the wrong people?

Seems a few people are in a tizzy over the above advert and have complained to the ASA about it being posted to Bishop Cranmer's blog (linked.)

Quite why this is seen as homophobic, and not persecution towards a blogger, is beyond a few people.

Some people are Sofa King Stupid.

Sofa King have used the strapline "Our Prices are Sofa King Low" for over nine years:

Now it seems we have a new generation of stupid people. 3 people complained to the ASA saying the phrase was

... offensive and unsuitable for general display.

As Sofa King pointed out in their defence:

... they had used the slogan "Where the Prices are Sofa King Low!" as their company strap line since they began trading nine years previously and that it was used on their premises and on their vehicles as well as in their advertising. ...complaints made to Northamptonshire Police in 2004 were not taken further by the Crown Prosecution Service and that no complaints had been made direct to them.

Sadly common sense has failed to prevail at the ASA. In their upheld  judgement:

but considered that [the phrase Sofa King Low] could be interpreted as a derivative of the swear word "fuck", which consumer research had found to be a word so likely to offend that it should not be used in ads at all, even when it was relevant to the name of a product.

Not sure who are the worse idiots - the three who complained, or the ASA for upholding the complaint.

---

Update: BitterWallet suggest that -

Rumours abound that Sofa King will now relocate to Norwich and now use the strapline of ‘Norfolk ‘n’ good’.

Smoking is no longer a health condition...

Via everyone's favourite toothless advertising regulator:

They added that as smoking was not a health condition, being asked if you were a smoker was, therefore, not a health question.
[...]
The ASA noted that Asda had followed the BMA and ABI guidelines in considering smoking to be a lifestyle choice

The ASA case in question revolves around whether Asda, in advertising life insurance with "no health questions asked" can get away with asking potential clients if they smoke or not.

Here in the real world, where smokers are regularly discriminated against on the basis of not only their own health (NHS costs,) but others (second hand and the fabled third hand smoke) it's hard to see how "do you smoke" cannot be construed as a health question.

One does, however, wonder what other "lifestyle choice" questions the nice people at Asda also ask, since the adjudication is strangely quiet.

• Have you had sex with a man, or anyone who's had sex with a man, in the past 60 years?
• Have you ever consumed excess ethanol?
• Do you religiously eat your five-a-day?
• Do you regularly use sun factor 5,000 when going outdoors in daylight?
• Do you own, or have you ever owned, a mobile phone?

I'm sure the list is, if not endless, quite large.

Well at least we now know you can tell your doctor to mind his own business when he asks how many you smoke, since it has no bearing on your health whatsoever; it's simply a lifestyle choice.

Powerade ION4 - making you wetter than a wet thing in lots of wet stuff.

Prompted by STONESTREEKER:

---

Update: Jan 2014, ASA found against GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd when they made a similar claim of "hydrates and fuels you better than water" finding that it "did not appear on the list of authorised health claims in respect of carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks"

---

Update: Jan 2012, ASA found in favour of Coca-Cola when two people make complaints about this advertising campain.

---

New, improved[1], Powerade ION4 [Subs: Na, Ca, Mg, K] [Sub: Contains carbohydrates] replenishes fuel and 4 of the minerals lost in sweat.

[Sub: Preparation]

[Sub: Determination]

[Sub: Perspiration]

[Sub: Hydration]

Powerade ION4, hydrates better than water.

Keep sweating.

Presenting Coca-Cola's new and improved[1] sports drink. They'll be sponsoring the Olympics (2012) dontcha know.

However it's not exactly new[1]. From the US website[current - there's a video there that didn't make it to the archive]:

In 2009, POWERADE^® sports scientists created ION4^®, which revolutionized the sports drink. ION4^® is an advanced electrolyte system that is in POWERADE^® to help replenish four electrolytes lost in sweat.

I wouldn't call a 2 year old product "new." Certainly not in the context of advertising. So that's a load of bollocks right from the start.



Back to the UK advert, they claim to "hydrate better than water." Sounds a tad spurious. Lets look at what it's supposed to 'help' with, or mitigate - dehydration.

The medical definition of dehydration (or hypohydration) is:

[...] the loss of water and salts essential for normal body function.

There are various stages/severity of dehydration:

Mild dehydration is the loss of no more than 5% of the body's fluid. Loss of 5-10% is considered moderate dehydration. Severe dehydration (loss of 10-15% of body fluids) is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate medical care.

Causes of dehydration?

Strenuous activity, excessive sweating, high fever, and prolonged vomiting or diarrhea

Symptoms?

Symptoms of dehydration at any age include cracked lips, dry or sticky mouth, lethargy, and sunken eyes. A person who is dehydrated cries without shedding tears and does not urinate very often. The skin is less elastic than it should be and is slow to return to its normal position after being pinched.

Treatment?

Increased fluid intake and replacement of lost electrolytes are usually sufficient to restore fluid balances in patients who are mildly or moderately dehydrated. For individuals who are mildly dehydrated, just drinking plain water may be all the treatment that is needed. Adults who need to replace lost electrolytes may drink sports beverages or consume a little additional salt.

So. Yes. If you're MILDLY dehydrated, Powerade, MAY be used to replace some salts lost during heavy sweating during exercise. (If you've lost quite a bit of fluid/your electrolyte balance is way off however I'd suggest you visit a doctor/hospital rather than drink this as a treatement.)

Or you could just drink water and, possibly, eat a packet of salt and vinegar crisps. Doing both, of course will also "hydrate you better than water (alone.)"

I think I know which will probably be cheaper. (I can't find any ION4 online at the moment, but from Ocado, 4x500ml bottles Powerade Cherry: £3.49. 12x25g Walker's Ready Salted: £2.65)

So while their claim to "hydrate better than water" isn't entirely bollocks, the way they present it - as something wonderful that cannot be achieved by anything else - is.

On the specific salts/minerals they mention - your body is adaptable. It can get temporarily lower on them without danger and can obtain all sorts of vitamins and minerals and salts from your (hopefully varied) diet. If you get a little low on some of them, your body will catch up. If you're getting dangerously low on some of them then Powerade isn't going to help you.

I'll probably do a post on the snake-oil that are OTC, self medicated, mineral supplements in general (or some specific ones) sometime.

---

[1] Come now. It can't be both. If it's new, then there isn't an old thing to improve upon. If it's improved then there must have been an older thing. Or as one Yahoo Answerer succinctly put it:

It's improving on the perfectly good thing that you own that the ad agency wants you to now think of as junk, so you'll buy the product they are pitching.

"For God's sake" is not offensive.

In the ongoing campaign by various groups about the invasive nature of, and pointlessness that is the UK Census being held this year, one group - the British Humanist Association[1] came up with three posters addressing what is the only voluntary question on the whole census - the religion question. One is shown below; all three can be seen here.

Not Religious?

In the 2011 Census Tick "No Religion"

"I put 'Jedi' in the last census. But I'll tick 'No religion this time.

I'm not religious and I don't want Bishops and the government saying this is a religious country.

That's just an excuse to keep religion in politics."

If you're not religious for God's sake say so.

cencus-campaign.org.uk

The intention was to buy advertising space at railway stations to display the posters

CBS Outdoor, the advertisers that own the space, had other ideas.

Two reasons were given by owners of the space: they were concerned that the use of the phrase ‘for God’s sake’ would cause widespread and serious offence and they also did not wish to take adverts relating to religion.

As the BHA allude to, only the professionally offended could take "widespread and serious offence,"

But what the BHA didn't point out (at least in their PR) is that the second reason is also spurious. Lots of religious groups are quite capable, and able, to advertise on the self-same spots. Those listed (though probably not exhaustive) include the Alpha course, the Christian Party[1] and the Trinitarian Bible Society.

It's not as if there isn't a history of religious advertising on public transport.

Vaguely related, I was somewhat amused by His Grace's "Mind your own *%$#@!! business" campaign but I think I'll be ticking the No Religion box.




[1] The BHA were responsible for the "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" bus adverts that generated ASA complaints. In reply the Christian Party came up with "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life" which became the most complained-about non-broadcast ad ever.

Update: Natwest - helpful banking

2011/03/03: Update: Natwest fail to pass a fifth of their self imposed targets.


Back in August I pulled Natwest's Helpful Banking advert apart thusly:

It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did.[2]
And why 160 branches will open earlier, or close later.

[...]
[2] Which banks don't have branches open on Saturdays? And I note that they don't qualify this by saying how many of their branches are open on Saturday. (I'm assuming it's not all of them since their branch locator has a check box for listing only those open on Saturdays.)

It would appear two others noticed this and put in a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (I was not one of them) and Natwest got a slap on the wrist as a result:

Issue

Two viewers challenged whether the claim "It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did" misleadingly implied that all NatWest branches were open on Saturdays, which they understood was not the case.

Response

[...] [Natwest] said they had a long history of Saturday openings and, in response to customer demand, 675 of their 1552[1] branches were currently open on Saturdays.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the ad focused on the NatWest Customer Charter, but nonetheless considered that viewers would understand the claim "It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did" to mean that all NatWest branches were open on Saturdays. Because we understood that that was not the case, and there was no qualification in the ad to explain that the claim applied to selected branches only, we concluded that the ad was misleading.[...]

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

[1] That'd be 43% then - not even 1/2 of them.

Smut on smut channel - shock horror!!

Not so much the advertisers themselves this time, but the authority that purports to regulate them.

No video this time, sorry ;)

Imagine you're watching an adult themed channel at 6.40am.

An advert for a parody of the Blair Witch Project called "The Bare Tits Project" pops up. (Mistakenly, apparently - the advert shouldn't have gone out.)

Tagline:  "In 2009 4 students went out to make a naughty documentary in Epping Forest ... They never returned but the footage was found a year later ...".


Now given that the advert (from the ASA description) has nothing more explicit than that which may be found on Page 3 of your favourite Red Top, and bearing in mind that this is "Tease Me 2" what would your reaction be?

1) Ignore it because you realise that kids won't typically be watching Tease Me 2, especially in households where the parents are actually parenting and have probably put the controls on such channels.

2) Ignore it because you realise that no-one except you will be watching Tease Me 2 at 7am in the morning.

3) You wouldn't be watching it anyway, since you either realise that there's very little smut on the smut channels that early in the morning, or you have better things to be doing then. Like sleeping.

4) Complain to the ASA that people might be offended at seeing smut on the smut channels at early-o'clock in the morning and it would "cause serious or widespread offence [and] that the depiction of nudity contravened [...] generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards."

Yes, some sad twat chose #4.

And the ASA agreed with them.

Furthermore, the ASA decided to stick their oar in and add to the complaint by claiming that the ('explicit') premium rate numbers advertised alongside should have been presented on an encrypted channel. (They should perhaps take a look in the adverts sections of the aforementioned Red Tops.)

And the ASA, strangely enough, agreed with themselves on that 2nd point.

So, the punishment for mistakenly airing an advert before 7am in the morning that normally wouldn't be aired after 9pm?

The usual, with a rider: The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form, unless it is shown on encrypted elements of adult entertainment channels.

The AA - Half price driving lessons?

Cheap driving lessons [current] from the AA? Hardly.

AA Driving Lessons
from only
£10.50 per hour *
Call now on
0800 980 1834
Offer subject to availability

* Discounted price is for the first two hours of tuition purchased in one transaction using a valid debit or credit card when calling 0800 980 1834, after which standard lesson pricing applies. A handling fee of 1.5% plus VAT is applied to credit card transactions. Lesson prices vary by postcode and instructor and will be confirmed when you call. Debit card transactions are exempt of handling fees. Offer cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer and applies to new pupils only. Tuition must be booked through the AA Customer Service Centre on the number displayed in this advertisement. AA tuition is subject to instructor availability. AA driving instructors are self-employed franchisees and all contracts for the provision of tuition are between the pupil and the instructor. AA Driving School reserves the right to amend, change or withdraw this offer at any time.

So, for one transaction only, you can get two half price hours worth of tuition at £10.50. If you buy at least two hours. If this is your first transaction with the AA. If you can get an instructor, and if that instructor only charges £21 per hour. If you aren't paying by credit card.

Having bought some lessons, you aren't allowed to use this offer again, since you would no longer be a new pupil.

That's a lot of if's for saving £21 on something that will probably cost quite a lot more.


Now, the AA has already recently been slapped once on the wrist by that most toothless of regulators (the ASA) for a similar (previous) advert:

we considered that the claim "Learn with Us HALF PRICE AA driving lessons from only £10.50 per hour*" in the headline implied that unlimited lessons could be booked at the stated price within the promotional time frame, whereas the price stated in the offer was limited to two lessons only, and was dependent upon the purchase of a block booking of a minimum of five lessons and was also dependent on the availability of an instructor who offered standard lessons at £21. We considered that, although the conditions of the offer were stated in subsequent click-throughs, those conditions contradicted rather than qualified the headline claim and the promotion was therefore misleading.

Clearly The AA has changed their advert due to the ruling, but have they really changed it sufficiently?