Complaint: 17/092

Burger King Television

Details

Complainants
advertisers
Antares Restaurant Group
Year
2017
Media
Television
Product
Food and Beverage
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

2017_9200.png

COMPLAINT NUMBER 17/092

COMPLAINANT M McDonald

ADVERTISER Antares Restaurant Group Ltd

ADVERTISEMENT Burger King Television

DATE OF MEETING 27 March 2017

OUTCOME No Grounds to Proceed


Advertisement: The television advertisement for Burger King shows a man eating in a Burger King restaurant. He spies a $1 coin on a dining table. At first, he goes to offer it to the people at the neighbouring table. He then smiles and it appears he is going to put the coin in his pocket. The voiceover says: "You can never have too much coinage with Burger King's new Change Range, starting from just $1..."

The Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed. Complainant, M McDonald, said:

Burger King Advertisement. Worker decides to 'keep the change'. It is a dishonest decision

and he knows it.

We are slipping in moral standards but that does not mean they don't exist. The media have

a responsibility to maintain standards.

The relevant provisions were Code for Advertising Food - Principle 1.

The Chair noted the Complainant's concern the advertisement does not uphold moral standards because the man decides to "keep the change", which is dishonest.

The Chair said it is not clear from the advertisement whether the man actually stole the money as we don't know what he did next. It is possible he may have decided to hand it in at the counter. The Chair said the man in the advertisement appeared to be a customer rather than a Burger King employee.

The Chair said the reference to the coin relates to the new range of food, which is called the "Change Range". The Chair considered the scenario in the advertisement did not reach the threshold to breach the Code.

Therefore, the Chair ruled the advertisement had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and there was no apparent breach of Basic Principle 4 or Rules

4 & 5 of the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Chai r' s Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed