Britain - The Official Thread

[homeforsummer]

The Ka one was never an official ad, simply a viral campaign run online, as such the ASA couldn't touch it.

Same applies to the other SportKa ad, where the bonnet flipped open to splatter a pigeon.

And this rather excellent VW Polo one:



The stupid thing is, the Toyota advert isn't anywhere near the level of those. It's literally a car sliding around a bit, and two jobsworths have complained that it would encourage dangerous driving.

Worth remembering other harmless ads in the UK have also been banned. Another VW one:



Which was apparently banned because people wrote in saying that VW must have "mistreated" the dog to make it shiver in the outside scenes. It doesn't matter that it's an acting dog, and that to make it shake they simply put it on a vibrating floor - idiots thought it must have been mistreated, so boom, there goes the ad.

 

[Liquid]

And they never banned those adverts with Vauxhalls in them (!)

But seriously, banning an advert over 2 measly complaints is incredulous.

 

[Famine]

I don't really have any issue with an advert being banned for breaking rules about what adverts can show, regardless of whether everyone complained about it or no-one did.

Just how those rules are arrived at in the first place.

 

[homeforsummer]

The trouble is, ads presumably have to pass some sort of board before they can be shown.

Theoretically, no ad that reaches TV should be banned for any reason (save for misinformation of course - not always apparent to those not in the know - recent misinformation in a Vauxhall Ampera ad got that one edited to make intentions clearer), as it should already have been screened before it was shown for the first time.

As far as I'm aware, TV ads aren't banned from showing vehicles in motion. The 86 in the ad never looks like it's "speeding" at any point, even if it's being driven with vigour - and as Toyota points out, completely in control at all times. Yet the ad is banned for promoting "dangerous driving", itself a completely arbitrary term. Worse, it's banned because two people used this completely arbitrary term as grounds for complaining about it.

 

[axletramp]

Surely the Corsa ad with the coloured smoke shows cars that are speeding in a built up area - far more 'dangerous' than the Toyota one.


...I think I'm just trying to get Corsa ads banned tbh...

 

[paddyree]

Surely the Corsa ad with the coloured smoke shows cars that are speeding in a built up area - far more 'dangerous' than the Toyota one.

...I think I'm just trying to get Corsa ads banned tbh...

Or the Juke ad where they throw it out of a plane and into water. Although that should just be banned for being ugly

 

[Liquid]

We've already banned adverts for smoking, (although that was paradoxically beneficial to the tobacco industy), and now we're getting banned adverts for cars.

Did you know that adverts for bookies encourage gambling? I bet as soon as Ofcom get wind of this Ray Winstone will be searching for a new paycheque.

 

[Mark T]

I wish I hadn't wandered back into this thread. To see that the Toyota advert has been banned is just beyond words.

As Famine mentioned it's the people deciding what and what is not suitable that needs looking at. I want to meet them and see who they are.

 

[axletramp]

Alcoholics, wife beaters, child abusers and swingers probably. Everyone has skeletons in their closet but some enjoy the double standard of telling us how we should be behaving and then getting paid for it.

Oh, and the media doesn't help.

 

[Sureboss]

The stupid thing with the 86 advert is that it just shows the lack of consistency, take Lynx adverts, continually running the idea that using their products make you sexually successful, I'm sure Danny or AT will correct me on this, but I'm fairly sure that is one of the things ads aren't allowed to do.

It's utterly bonkers, should they now ban every James Bond ad that has ever existed?

Too many suits and not enough people with common sense in positions of high authority.

 

[Liquid]

And as I said, how does an advert for Ladbrokes or bet365 not enourage gambling?

You're right SB, there's no consistancy in application. Something which is unfortunately common in our nation's decision making.

 

[Zenith]

With all this news of crazy violations of human rights, I have to ask: What is the British method of dealing with an authoritarian government?

 

[Famine]

I believe it's called "BOHICA".

 

[Liquid]

With all this news of crazy violations of human rights, I have to ask: What is the British method of dealing with an authoritarian government?

Ignore the fact that we helped to put Mugabe in power, then bang on about his history of oppression.

Same goes for the Irish question; in that case, we were the authoritarian Government for centuries.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Its was a similar thing with the BMW films a few years back (which were are brilliant), they would never have got passed by the ASA (who have stupidly strict codes for car adverts) but the ASA couldn't touch them as they all were on-line.

Interstingly enough, neither of my DVD copies of 'The Hire' films (Series 1 or 2) carry any certification at all! They just say "for promotional use only"?

 

[ExigeEvan]

As far as I'm aware, TV ads aren't banned from showing vehicles in motion. The 86 in the ad never looks like it's "speeding" at any point, even if it's being driven with vigour - and as Toyota points out, completely in control at all times. Yet the ad is banned for promoting "dangerous driving", itself a completely arbitrary term. Worse, it's banned because two people used this completely arbitrary term as grounds for complaining about it.

It's called a "knee jerk reaction" and it is what our law and policy makers do so very well.

 

[DK]

We've already banned adverts for smoking, (although that was paradoxically beneficial to the tobacco industry), and now we're getting banned adverts for cars.

Wait, what? How did you find that out?

 

[Scaff]

The trouble is, ads presumably have to pass some sort of board before they can be shown.

Theoretically, no ad that reaches TV should be banned for any reason (save for misinformation of course - not always apparent to those not in the know - recent misinformation in a Vauxhall Ampera ad got that one edited to make intentions clearer), as it should already have been screened before it was shown for the first time.

As far as I'm aware, TV ads aren't banned from showing vehicles in motion. The 86 in the ad never looks like it's "speeding" at any point, even if it's being driven with vigour - and as Toyota points out, completely in control at all times. Yet the ad is banned for promoting "dangerous driving", itself a completely arbitrary term. Worse, it's banned because two people used this completely arbitrary term as grounds for complaining about it.

Ads do not get checked prior to being broadcast, its the company making the adverts responsability to ensure they meet the code, with the ASA having the ability to pull an advert if it falls foul of the code.

The ruling in regard to the Toyota ad can be found here:

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/11/Toyota-GB-PLC/SHP_ADJ_206185.aspx

The ASA understood that Toyota had designed the ad to emphasise the unique driving experience of the car rather than the speeds it could achieve. We noted their belief that the central character was always shown to be in total control of the car and did not engage in any dangerous driving. Similarly, we understood that Toyota believed the ad showed the authorities attempting to prevent the character from having an authentic driving experience rather than preventing him from driving in a dangerous way. We considered, however, that a number of scenes depicted the character driving at speed and in a reckless manner, as shown by the reactions of bystanders as he drove past them, and the car chase scenes as the driver dodged, swerved and overtook various other drivers and obstacles.

We understood that because the ad was highly stylised and set in a fantasy environment, Toyota believed that the driving scenes featured were impossible to emulate. Whilst we appreciated that in the world where the ad was set, cars could drive themselves, objects could miraculously appear or disappear and certain everyday objects were contraband, we considered that the roads, public spaces and the car featured in the ad were recognisable as such and were not significantly different from those in the real world. We therefore considered that the driving featured, and in particular the speeds shown, could be emulated on real roads.

We also considered that the highly stylised nature of the ad glamorised the reckless manner in which the car was driven. Because we considered the ad portrayed speed, and the way the car could be handled in a manner that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and condoned dangerous driving.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 19.1, 19.2 and 19.3 (Motoring).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Toyota not to portray speed or driving behaviour in a way that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly in future.

And the section of the code that relates to cars can be found here:
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-C..._Specific+Category+Sections_19+Motoring_Rules

19.1
Marketing communications for motor vehicles, fuel or accessories must not depict or refer to practices that condone or encourage anti-social behaviour.
19.2
Marketing communications must not condone or encourage unsafe or irresponsible driving. If it could be emulated, marketing communications must not depict a driving practice that is likely to condone or encourage a breach of those rules of the Highway Code that are legal requirements if that driving practice seems to take place on a public road or in a public space. Vehicles’ capabilities may be demonstrated on a track or circuit if it is obviously not in use as a public highway.
19.3
Marketing communications must not depict speed in a way that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly or to break the law.

To avoid the implication of irresponsible driving through excessive speed, care must be taken in the style of presentation of marketing communications. Particular care must be taken in, for example, cinema commercials and in marketing communications that appear in electronic media to avoid moving images that imply excessive speed. If they are shown in normal driving circumstances on public roads, vehicles must be seen not to exceed UK speed limits.
19.4
Marketers must not make speed or acceleration the main message of their marketing communications. Marketing communications may give general information about a vehicle’s performance, such as acceleration and mid-range statistics, braking power, road-holding and top speed.
19.5
Safety claims must not exaggerate the benefit to consumers. Marketers must not make absolute claims about safety unless they hold evidence to substantiate them.

Interstingly enough, neither of my DVD copies of 'The Hire' films (Series 1 or 2) carry any certification at all! They just say "for promotional use only"?

Strictly speaking 'The Hire' wasn't a BMW UK campaign, it was run out of the USA. That the rest of the world could see and download the clips and could get hold of the (region free) US DVD's was of course simply an odd coincidence and not at all a way of getting around advertising rules at all.

On a side note - not everything has to carry certification from the BFCC in the UK:

The ‘E’ symbol on video/DVD packaging indicates that the distributor believes the work to be exempt from classification.

Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, a video is an exempted work if it is designed to inform, educate or instruct; is concerned with sport, religion or music; or is a video game.

However, if such a work, including video games, depicts human sexual activity or gross violence to any significant extent it will need a BBFC classification. In addition, video games which contain ‘linear’ material (that is video footage) also have to be classified by the BBFC.

The ‘E’ symbol is not an official symbol and does not have any legal standing. Nor is it a requirement that it should appear on videos/DVDs, unlike the BBFC classification symbols.

Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, it is responsibility of the distributor to decide whether or not a work is exempt, and distributors have tended to put an ‘E’ symbol on videos/DVDs as guidance to the public.

The BBFC does not examine exempted works, nor does it decide whether or not a work is exempt.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/faqs/2010/05/what-does-the-‘e’-symbol-mean-is-it-an-official-category/

 

[lbsf1]

Where do you complain too?? I might just have some fun getting some adverts banned if I can come up with some arbitrary reason how it is shown not being completely morally and pollitically correct.


Stella Cidre comes into mind for being stereotypical and possibly "racist" to the french. I'm pretty sure I could word that and sound offended enough to get that banned.

 

[Scaff]

Where do you complain too?? I might just have some fun getting some adverts banned if I can come up with some arbitrary reason how it is shown not being completely morally and pollitically correct.


Stella Cidre comes into mind for being stereotypical and possibly "racist" to the french. I'm pretty sure I could word that and sound offended enough to get that banned.

You complain here:

http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx


And it has to break the relevant section of this:
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Broadcast-HTML.aspx

Unless its non-broadcast, in which case its this:
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML.aspx

And I pretty much guarantee you will loose the will to live before you finish reading that mess of a code.

 

[lbsf1]

You complain here:

http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx


And it has to break the relevant section of this:
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Broadcast-HTML.aspx

Unless its non-broadcast, in which case its this:
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML.aspx

And I pretty much guarantee you will loose the will to live before you finish reading that mess of a code.

Hmmn, had this been a year ago I might have actually had the time to pursue this, however sadly not now.

Having a quick look I'm pretty sure a few more car adverts are close to the boundary of the:

Motoring advertisements must not demonstrate power, acceleration or handling characteristics except in a clear context of safety. Reference to those characteristics must not suggest excitement, aggression or competitiveness.

20.4 Motoring advertisements must not refer to speed in a way that might condone or encourage dangerous, competitive, inconsiderate or irresponsible driving or motorcycling.

Factual statements about a vehicle’s speed or acceleration are permissible but must not be presented as a reason for preferring the advertised vehicle. Speed or acceleration claims must not be the main selling message of an advertisement.

20.5 Motoring advertisements must not exaggerate the benefit of safety features to consumers or suggest that a vehicle’s features enable it to be driven or ridden faster or in complete safety.

 

[MatskiMonk]

TOYOTA ADVERT??

http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/400x/30278137.jpg



Seriously didn't ^that ad get banned too?

EDIT: The Toyota ad is rubbish anyway, maybe the two people that complained were Fujio Cho and Akio Toyoda... just to generate a bit of Buzz about the ad.

 

[lbsf1]

TOYOTA ADVERT??



Seriously didn't ^that ad get banned too?

EDIT: The Toyota ad is rubbish anyway, maybe the two people that complained were Fujio Cho and Akio Toyoda... just to generate a bit of Buzz about the ad.

Probably breaking this one:

20.5 Motoring advertisements must not exaggerate the benefit of safety features to consumers or suggest that a vehicle’s features enable it to be driven or ridden faster or in complete safety.

And this one.

Advertisements must not condone or encourage dangerous, competitive, inconsiderate or irresponsible driving or motorcycling. Advertisements must not suggest that driving or motorcycling safely is staid or boring.

And possibly for being missleading aswell considering I doubt that that Peugeot will "take your breath away".

 

[daan]

And possibly for being missleading aswell considering I doubt that that Peugeot will "take your breath away".

Only when you're pushing one.

 

[Scaff]

Having a quick look I'm pretty sure a few more car adverts are close to the boundary of the:

A lot of car ads push it as far as they think they can, a few get picked up, many don't.

The mad thing is that as the code only covers motoring adverts you can show speed, etc with much more freedom on non-motoring ads and not break the code.

TOYOTA ADVERT??

Seriously didn't ^that ad get banned too?

A looooooooooooooooooooooooong time before the current code was in place, back when we had proper car adverts.

Like this (rubbish car - but RUSS SWIFT)

 

[boiltheocean]

Soooo who voted for a local police and crime commissioner?

 

[Liquid]

This is the one I always remember from growing up.

That image of the child being saved from the lorry was very striking to a 3-4 year old. Plus, the 406 is a gorgeous car.

 

[homeforsummer]

Ads do not get checked prior to being broadcast, its the company making the adverts responsability to ensure they meet the code, with the ASA having the ability to pull an advert if it falls foul of the code.

The ruling in regard to the Toyota ad can be found here:

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/11/Toyota-GB-PLC/SHP_ADJ_206185.aspx

And the section of the code that relates to cars can be found here: http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-C..._Specific+Category+Sections_19+Motoring_Rules

All thoroughly depressing.

And ironic that an advert depicting someone trying to break free of the dull, fun-lacking city, controlled by "the man", should be banned by "the man" for essentially being too interesting.

I think Toyota has basically proved its point.

Incidentally, Toyota UK confirms that it's only the 90 second version of the ad which has been banned - the 30 and 60 slots are apparently okay - presumably they don't have as much sliding about in them.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Soooo who voted for a local police and crime commissioner?

I didn't.

It would have involved driving about an hour to do it. Not surprised by the lack of turnout, no one really knows what to expect from this role, even less so with the cuts to the police.

 

[Lizard]

Soooo who voted for a local police and crime commissioner?

Yep I did.