Complaint: 17/224

Foodstuffs, Radio

Details

Complainants
advertisers
Foodstuffs NZ
Year
2017
Media
Radio
Product
Food and Beverage
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

2017_22400.png

COMPLAINT NUMBER 17/224

COMPLAINANT M Kuka ADVERTISER Foodstuffs NZ ADVERTISEMENT Foodstuffs, Radio DATE OF MEETING 17 July 2017

OUTCOME No Grounds to Proceed


Advertisement: The radio advertisement for Foodstuffs Pak n Save said "I'm delivering fresh Waikato produce beef and lamb to a Pak'nSave store in the Waikato... That was quick! No wonder the food here is so fresh. Pak'nSave, our policy- New Zealands lowest food prices

The Acting Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed. Complainant, M Kuka, said: The pronunciation of the word 'Waikato' was incorrect, the

announcer pronouncing it 'Why-Cad-Oh'. The correct pronunciation of 'Waikato' is 'Why-Car-

Tore'. As an official language of Aotearoa it would be lovely to hear it honoured as such.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message - ng? mihi nui.

The relevant provisions were Code of Ethics - Basic Principle 4, Rule 5.

The Acting Chair noted the Complainant's concern that the Maori language was being

mispronounced in the advertisement.

In considering the issue raised by the Complainant about language pronunciation, the Chair referred to a precedent, Decision,16/233, for a similar issue, which was ruled No Grounds to Proceed.

That decision said in part:

"... The Chair said the advertisement was illustrating that the Advertiser can create a canvas of any size and the one mentioned stretched from Warkworth to Cape Reinga. The Chair considered it was not the Advertiser's intention to cause offence by saying the place name in a way that the Complainant objected to. The Chair noted that a variety of accents and different levels of knowledge about language could mean that words or place names were mispronounced.... "

The Acting Chair confirmed that this Decision applied to the complaint before her. While she was sympathetic to the aspiration of correct pronunciation on all advertising platforms and acknowledged the offence caused to the Complainant, she said the advertisement was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to most listeners and was not in breach of Rule 5 of the Code of Ethics. She confirmed the advertisement had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society and was not in breach of Basic Principle 4.

17/224


Accordingly, the Acting Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Acting Chai r' s Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed


































































2