Posters for gay hookup site Squirt.org were removed from the Toronto Subway because the company supposedly promoted sex in public places, which is against the law , according to a spokesperson from the Toronto Transit Commission.
claim the 100 posters were only removed after they were seen inside train carriages, some were displayed outside a station from June to September without problems.
A national press ad for Paddy Power, which appeared in the Sport section of the Guardian, featured odds on the candidates for the 2015 FIFA presidential election. An image showed Sepp Blatter revealing the winner by holding up a piece of paper which said
ME . Text at the top of the ad stated, JUST F**K OFF ALREADY! Issue
The complainant challenged whether the use of the word F**K was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
Assessment: Complaint not upheld
The ASA noted that the word F**K was partly obscured by asterisks, but acknowledged that the meaning of the word was still clear.
We noted that the ad appeared in the Sport section of the Guardian, which we understood had an adult readership and frequently contained swear words. We considered that readers of that section were likely to understand that the ad was intended to be a light hearted comment on the ongoing allegations of corruption within FIFA, and in particular the controversy surrounding Sepp Blatter's tenure as FIFA president. In that context, we considered the use of
F**K was unlikely to cause offence to readers.
Because we did not consider the ad would be offensive to those who were likely to see it, we concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
New Zealand's Advertising Standards Authority has released its decision about a omplaint against fast-food chain Hell Pizza with its advertisement for the Flaming Dragon pizza. The ad stated in part:
dragon and receive...a certificate of mutherf**king awesomeness and Warning! It's even hotter and we're setting this b*%#@ on fire!
The complainants said they were offended by the language used in the colourful advertisement, which
would be attractive to children:
I know I am sensitive about foul language compared to some folk, but surely this is going a bit far - this is a colourful flyer that I'm sure would be picked up by children in the
household . I just didn't expect such content in a pizza advert.
I do realise that Hell do this sort of stuff to get a reaction - so they win either way don't they?
A Hell Pizza spokesperson said the pizza was
strictly R18 as it contains the world's hottest chillies and as such the advertising is aimed at an adult audience .
The ASA ruled the advertisement breached social responsibility, decency and offensiveness in the Code of Ethics. The
censor added that the flyer was not saved by the use of the symbols and asterisks in place of the letters in the expletives as they were still recognisable.
The Committee of Advertising Practice, CAP, is the arm of Advertising Authority, ASA, charged with producing censorship rules for advertising. ASA have issued the following press release:
CAP have produced clear new guidance
for vloggers to help them better understand how and when the advertising rules apply to their vlogs so that they are upfront and deal fairly with their followers.
The new guidance comes in response to calls for greater clarity
from vloggers about when material in vlogs becomes advertising and how they can make that clear. It follows a ruling last year in which several vlogs (where there was a commercial relationship between the advertiser and the vloggers) were found to be
misleading because they did not make clear before consumers engaged with the material that they were ads.
The advertising rules, which apply across media including online and to social media channels, state that ads must be
obviously identifiable as such. If a vlogger is paid to promote a product or service and an advertiser controls the message then it becomes an ad. When that happens, like all advertisers, vloggers must be upfront and clearly signpost that they're
The scenarios covered in the guidance are:
Online marketing by a brand - where a brand collaborates with a vlogger and makes a vlog about the brand and/or its products and shares it on its own social media channels
"Advertorial" vlogs -- a whole video is in the usual style of the vlogger but the content is controlled by the brand and the vlogger has been paid
Commercial breaks within vlogs -- where most of the vlog is editorial material but there's also a specific section dedicated to the promotion of a product
Product placement -
independent editorial content that also features a commercial message
Vlogger's video about their own product - the sole content of a vlog is a promotion of the vlogger's own merchandise
Editorial video referring to a vlogger's products -- a vlogger promotes their own product within a broader editorial piece
Sponsorship - a brand sponsors a vlogger to create a video but has no
control of the content
Free items -- a brand sends a vlogger items for free without any control of the content of the vlog
The advertising rules do not cover or prohibit vloggers entering into commercial relationships and the ASA does not regulate editorial opinion. In response to feedback from vloggers, however, we're also reminding brands and agencies
(be they advertising, digital or PR) looking to partner with vloggers of the need to be transparent. Any advertiser or agency that asks a vlogger not to be up-front (disclose) that they're advertising are asking them to break the advertising rules and
potentially the law.
Launching the new guidance, Director of the Committees of Advertising Practice, Shahriar Coupal said:
Wherever ads appear we should be confident we can trust what an
advertiser says; it's simply not fair if we're being advertised to and are not made aware of that fact. Our guidance will give vloggers greater confidence that they're sticking to the rules which in turn will help maintain the relationship and trust
they've built with their followers.
Before investigating the issues raised below we told Protein World that, due to our concerns about a range of health and weight loss claims, the ad could not appear again in its current form.
While the ad was prohibited from appearing again solely on
those grounds, we undertook a separate investigation to establish whether the ad was in breach of the advertising rules on harm, offence and social responsibility.
A poster for a slimming product, seen on the London Underground network, stated ARE YOU BEACH BODY READY?
and featured an image of a toned and athletic woman wearing a bikini.
378 complainants, who raised a range of issues around offence and potential harm, challenged whether:
the ad implied that a body shape which differed from the idealised one presented was not good enough or in some way inferior and was, therefore, offensive; and
the combination of an image of a very slim, toned body and the headline
ARE YOU BEACH BODY READY? was socially irresponsible in the context of an ad for a slimming product.
ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld
1. Not upheld
The ASA understood that the Copy Advice team had seen the ad prior to it appearing and advised that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. We recognised that beach
body was a relatively well understood term that for some people had connotations of a toned, athletic physique similar to the image of the model in the ad. We considered that it also had a broader meaning - that of feeling sufficiently comfortable
and confident with one's physical appearance to wear swimwear in a public environment. We considered the claim ARE YOU BEACH BODY READY? prompted readers to think about whether they were in the shape they wanted to be for the summer and we did not
consider that the accompanying image implied that a different body shape to that shown was not good enough or was inferior. We concluded that the headline and image were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
2. Not upheld
Although we understood the claim
Are you beach body ready? invited readers to think about their figures, we did not consider the image of the model would shame women who had different body shapes into believing they needed to take a slimming supplement to feel confident wearing
swimwear in public. For that reason, we concluded the ad was not irresponsible.