ASA Rulings, Summary – Mind your Ads: Luck, Liquor and Language under the Microscope

In this post, we dive into the ASA’s latest rulings on the holy trinity of advertising troublemakers: betting, booze, and bad language.

 

Appealing against “appeal”: ASA rules under-18s not sufficiently “bowled over” by former cricketer in gambling ad

What was complained about? Cricketer Stuart Broad posted an ad on his X page, advertising his partnership with a betting company. The ASA challenged whether this breached the CAP Code as the ad included an individual who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.

What was the ruling? Not upheld. The ASA assessed Mr Broad's profile and concluded he did not have a strong appeal to under-18s. Mr Broad was a retired cricket player as opposed to someone with a significant role in the sport, suggesting he was of low interest to under-18s. He did not have a strong media presence outside of this career and the vast majority of programmes he appeared on were focussed specifically on cricket. His social media showed that only a small proportion of followers were under 18 and he had a limited media profile (his Facebook and YouTube pages were inactive for several years and he did not have a TikTok or Snapchat account). There was also nothing in the way Stuart Broad was presented in the ad that would have strongly attracted the attention of under-18s.

Ramifications Gambling companies should ensure they have conducted thorough risk assessments of the individuals they partner with to advertise their products. Even if the ad does not specifically target under-18s, the ASA will still consider the individual's general prominence and influence on the age group. As well as the context of the ad, important factors to consider include (i) whether they are active or retired; (ii) their other appearances in the public eye; (iii) the percentage and relative number of followers they have which are under 18; and (iv) the types of social media channels they have.

 

Party on pause: ASA puts a cork on alcohol advert in the midst of Dry January

What was complained about? A paid-for Instagram story which featured a bottle of alcohol held in front of a supermarket shelf. The caption included the following phrases: “Doing Dry January? One won’t hurt, right?” and “Pick up a 70cl bottle… and keep the party going into January!”. The complainant challenged whether the ad irresponsibly implied that drinking alcohol could overcome boredom during 'Dry January'.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA concluded that the fundamental message of the ad was to tempt consumers participating in Dry January to drink in order avoid the boredom of abstinence. The specific mention of Dry January in the ad meant it specifically targeted people participating, likely for health-related reasons. The phrase “one won't hurt, right?” was found to be associated with peer pressure and often used to persuade people to drink against their better judgement.

Ramifications This ruling emphasises the importance of contextualisation in ads, especially those concerning alcohol. When advertising alcohol, something which may otherwise be considered light-hearted may breach the rules on social responsibility. Advertisers should be careful not to (inadvertently) encourage excessive drinking or place any type of pressure on consumers to drink. Referencing alcohol as solving boredom is also a relatively common theme in upheld ASA complaints which advertisers should be wary of.

 

A MATTER OF F*ACT

What was complained about? A pop-up, banner ad alluding to an expletive was banned for being offensive and inappropriately targeted. The ad was featured in on a newspaper's website and displayed the headline “For facts' sake” and a smaller text underneath which explained the importance of fact-checked journalism. The word “fact” was overlaid with a similarly spelt expletive, which was almost completely obscured by “act.”

What was the ruling? Whilst the CAP Code states that ads must not include any content that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence, the ASA considers that the “f-word” is a word so likely to offend that it should not generally be used or alluded to in advertising. The ASA noted that, although the f-word was obscured by the word “facts”, many people would understand it was implied. However, it was found that this expletive (without asterisks and uncensored) was used relatively frequently in this particular newspaper and website, and this fact “shap[ed] the context in which the ad was seen and influenc[ed] expectations among its readership”. The advertiser also provided evidence that the ad was appropriately targeted – 96.7% of its UK website visitors were 18+ and 3.3% were aged 15-17. As such the ASA concluded that children were very unlikely to see the ad.

What are the ramifications? This ruling demonstrates that, while expletives are generally likely to cause offence in advertising, context plays a crucial role in determining when this will be the case. Certain expletives are highlighted by the ASA as being ones which should rarely be used, and in these cases, advertisers must demonstrate that are appropriately targeted to an audience who would not likely be offended by its use. The frequency and way the word was used by the advertiser in the past, as well as the likelihood that under-18s that would see the ad, are important in determining this. It is important to remember that the same word can be unoffensive in one context, but offensive in another – so this ruling does not give the go-ahead for carte blanche use of such language. Just because an expletive is obscured also does not absolve advertisers of responsibility – if consumers are likely to recognise the word, and that word is likely to cause offence, that obscured word should not be used.