Complaint: 17/401

Out of Home

Details

Complainants
advertisers
AMI, DB Export Ltd
Year
2017
Media
Out of Home
Product
Alcohol
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document





COMPLAINT NUMBER
17/401
COMPLAINANT
J Nicholls
ADVERTISER
AMI, DB Export Ltd
ADVERTISEMENT
Out of Home
DATE OF MEETING
6 November
OUTCOME
No Grounds to Proceed


Advertisement:
The digital billboard advertisement for AMI showed a girl on her veranda
and said: "Together we can make our world a little safer."

Another digital billboard shown was for DB Export Larger and showed an image of the
product and said: "The ahhh of Lager. The mmmm of hops."

The Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Complainant, J. Nicholls, said:
"I believe that an advertisement on alcohol should not be
placed in the same context as an advertisement about the safety of children. The series of
billboards need to be appropriate for all of them especially if jumping from one to the next so
quickly. It is a contradictory statement to make that children are safe in the same context of
alcohol especially where there are no adults in the pictures and is inconsistent. The Principle
3 C. is broken where alcohol in advertising should not be prominent for people under the age
of 25 and minors should only appear where they would naturally be found. The children in
the AMI advertisement on safety would not naturally be around alcohol bottles by
themselves or with other adults. According to the Children and Young People's Code also
the product and style of advertisement should be appropriate for the audience that this is not
where it is open to people of all ages. Rule 11 (b) is broken too where children should not be
encouraged to enter into unsafe situations and Rule 1 (i) where advertisements should not
be placed in the media where children are a large proportion of the expected audience. And,
Rule 1 (j) is broken where a special duty of care must be applied to beverage products in
regard to advertising for young people, and they should not state or imply that products are
suitable for frequent or daily consumption. And, especially the part of Rule 1 (j) was broken
where if possible healthy or better-for-you options should be promoted. This clearly was not
promoted as placing an advertisement about the safety of children in the context of one
about alcohol is not promoting healthy or better-for-you options."

The relevant provisions were Children and Young People Advertising Code -
Principle 1, Principle 3, Rule 1(b), Rule 1(i), Rule 1(j) and Code of Ethics Basic
Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics.

The Chair noted the Complainant's concern an advertisement about the safety of children
should not appear in the same context as an alcohol advertisement.

The Chair considered whether the advertisements were targeting children. In making her
determination she took into account the products, presentation and placement of the
advertisements and found while the medium carried a level of risk, this mitigated by the
types of products advertised which were not appealing to a young audience. The Chair also



17/401
noted their execution was unlikely to appeal to children and young people. On consideration
of the above, the Chair ruled the advertisement were not targeting children or young people
and the Children and Young People Advertising Code did not apply.

The Chair noted the advertisement featuring the girl was promoting insurance and while
children could be exposed to it, they were not the target audience and there was nothing in
the advertisement which was likely to have general appeal to children. Turning to the
advertisement for DB Export, the Chair noted the advertisement only showed the product.
While the Chair acknowledged the concerns of the Complainant, she said the
advertisements were for legal products the advertisers were able to promote and did not
contain anything that was likely to appeal to children.

The Chair said the placement of the unrelated advertisements as part of the digital billboard
rotation did not reach the threshold to the Code of Ethics.

Accordingly, the Chair ruled the complaint had no grounds to proceed.


Chair's Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed




2