Complaint: 12/584

Vodafone New Zealand Television

Details

Complainants
F. Kee
advertisers
Vodafone
Year
2012
Media
Television
Product
Household Goods
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

COMPLAINT NUMBER
12/584
COMPLAINANT
F. Kee
ADVERTISER
Vodafone New Zealand Limited
ADVERTISEMENT
Vodafone New Zealand Television
DATE OF MEETING
31 October 2012
OUTCOME
No Grounds to Proceed



Complaint: The television advertisement for Vodafone showed a young Maori actor, James Rolleston, patting a Greyhound dog. Rolleston said:

"Check out this dog. She's crazy fast, almost as fast as Vodafone. Her name's Metaphor."

Looking around he said:

"She's not actually my dog."


At the end of the advertisement, he said:

"Yeah, one of the better metaphors I've seen lately."


Complainant, F. Kee, said: in part: "the Vodafone advertisement depicts Maori in a derogative light. Suggesting that a Maori boy does not own the dog... This type of advertising is in direct contradiction of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, perpetuating ideals of Maori inferiority, and social disadvantage."

The relevant provisions were Basic Principles 3, 4 and 6 of the Code for People in Advertising.

The Chairman noted the Complainant's concerns that the advertisement presented a negative stereotype contrary to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Chairman took into account that Basic Principle 6 made provision for humorous and satirical treatment of groups of people in advertisements, provided that it was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence, hostility, contempt, abuse or ridicule.

Turning to the advertisement before her, the Chairman considered that the contextual humour created of using the same actor from the film 'Boy' did not present consumers with the notion of social disadvantage.

As such the Chairman said the advertisement did not portray people or use stereotypes in a manner which was likely to cause serious or widespread offence on the basis of race, and thus did not breach the Code for People in Advertising.

Accordingly, the Chairman ruled that there was no apparent beach of the Advertising Codes and ruled that there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.


Chairman's Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed