ASA Watch

A TV ad for Fox Mobile ringtones featured the American ventriloquist, Jeff Dunham, with his dummy, Achmed, the Dead Terrorist . The ringtones used some of the phrases from Dunham's act which included Silence! I kill you , Stop touching me and Knock, knock. Who's there? Me. I kill you .

A viewer challenged whether the ad was offensive because he believed it was racist towards Muslims.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld

The ASA understood that the ad featured the puppet Achmed, the Dead Terrorist, which was a well-known part of Jeff Dunhams ventriloquism act.

We understood that that particular comedy act touched on the theme of terrorism and we also understood that there would be viewers who found the puppet character and comedy theme of terrorism distasteful or offensive. However, we noted that at no time did the ad make any reference to terrorism or the Islamic faith. We also noted that, whilst the ad showed some footage of the act, its emphasis was on the phrases Silence! I kill you, Stop touching me and Knock, knock, whos there? Me, I kill you which were available to download as mobile phone ringtones. Whilst we understood that some viewers might find those ringtones distasteful, we considered that the content of the ad accurately reflected the nature of the product being advertised. Because the ad itself contained no direct reference to terrorism or the Muslim religion, we concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

An ad, in Harrods Magazine, for clothing and accessories sold in the store, showed a woman lying at the foot of a staircase, with a blood stain on the floor near her head. A man holding a heavy candlestick was standing next to her and text below him stated Professor Plum with the candlestick in the hall?

One complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive and likely to condone violence.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld

Although we noted that the ad depicted a scene which heavily implied that a violent act had taken place, we noted that the presentation was very stylised and the focus was on presenting the fashion and jewellery, rather than portraying a realistic image of violence. We considered that readers would clearly associate the image with the well-known board game Cluedo and would understand, in that context, that the scene related to the object of the game, namely, discovering which Cluedo character had committed a murder, in which room and with which object. We therefore considered that readers would see the image as a darkly humorous representation of a popular board game and, in light of that, concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause offence or condone violence.

We investigated the ad under rules 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.

A TV ad, for Belle D'Opium perfume, featured a woman dancing to a drum beat. The woman pointed to her inner elbow and ran her finger along the inside of her forearm. She was then shown lying on the floor as a voice-over began I am your addiction, I am Belle D'Opium. The new fragrance by Yves St Laurent.

Thirteen viewers objected that the ad was irresponsible and offensive, because the woman's actions simulated drug use.

ASA Assessment: Upheld

The ASA understood the ad had been carefully choreographed and styled to create Belle and her movements as a way of emphasising the powerful and intense qualities of the perfume, and to play on the idea the perfume had addictive qualities like a woman or opium. However, we noted that the ad broadcast on TV was only 20 seconds of the full one-minute ad featured on the Belle d'Opium website, and that it had been cut to feature predominantly the quickest and most dramatic music and scenes from the full ad.

We noted that two of the key scenes, the circular symbol and wings gesture scenes, were omitted from the TV ad, and other key scenes were altered. We considered that the fast changing scenes and urgent music, created a less flowing, more frantic atmosphere in the ad, which might not enable viewers to interpret the ad as a stylised expression of femininity and bewitchment, as intended.

We were concerned that in the context of the ad, Belle running her finger down her inner arm could be seen to simulate the injection of opiates into the body. We were also concerned that following that scene, Belle was shown moving in a series of short, rapid scenes, before the ad concluded with her body seizing upwards while lying on the floor, an action we considered could be seen to simulate the effect of drugs on the body. While we recognised the name OPIUM was a well-known designer perfume brand and did not consider it irresponsible or offensive to advertise OPIUM branded products, and while we noted the consumer research found that most viewers did not consider the ad to be offensive, we nevertheless considered the woman's actions simulated drug use, and therefore concluded it was irresponsible and unacceptable for broadcast.

The ad breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 (Physical, mental, moral or social harm), 4.4 (Health and safety), and 4.9 (Violence, crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour), but did not breach 4.2 (Serious or widespread offence).

The advertising censor, ASA, has announced:

On 17 January 2011 we have launched our new ad campaign to raise awareness of the ASA's work to ensure all ads continue to be legal, decent, honest and truthful.

The ads also aim to inform businesses about the ASA's extended remit online which, from 1 March, will include marketing communications by companies on their own websites.

It also seems a bit confusing though. Why should all adverts be decent? I can't see anything in the actual codes that require all adverts to be decent. Only that ads shouldn't be somehow harmful in the context with which they appear. So this would surely require ads to be decent on daytime TV. But this simply does not apply to an 'indecent' hardcore ad in a men's magazine.

There also seems little information on how the new code applies to some of the complexities about internet jurisdiction. Even small websites can be very multinational, with internet servers being in different countries to the content providers. and indeed, to the target audience. And even less information about such key concepts as labelling and child protection mechanisms.

The codes do not appear to have been written with websites in mind.

A TV ad, for the film SAW 3D , started with images of two men, one of whom was screaming and reaching towards the viewer with blood on his hand. A voice-over stated Since the beginning you have watched others .

The following images showed a bare-chested man breathing heavily in a car with a broken windscreen, people on a street looking at a window display, a swinging cage, a spiked metal mesh crashing down, and a man falling out of the bottom of a hanging cage as the voice-over continued Now it is your turn to play.

The next scene showed spiky metal restraints suddenly appearing around the arm and shoulders of a man wearing 3D glasses. He screamed. The voice-over continued Experience the final ever Saw in eye-popping, heart-pounding, mind-blowing 3D whilst images were shown of circular saw blades flying over the people in a cinema and towards the viewer, people cowering from an explosion, two people hanging from a shaft, a close-up of a screaming man falling, a huge figure reaching out into the cinema from the screen and lifting a person back towards the screen, and a cage crashing through a window.

The voice of the Jigsaw character said The last piece of the puzzle is you as the camera moved towards a woman tied between rail tracks, followed by a vehicle on the same tracks coming towards the viewer and flying out over the people in the cinema making them flinch. The voice-over stated Saw 3D. On-screen text stated SAW 3D THE FINAL CHAPTER . Circular-saw blades flew towards the viewer and the voice-over continued Only available in cinemas October 28th. On-screen text IN CINEMAS THURS OCT 28 appeared under the preceding text.

The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post 7.30 pm restriction.

The complainant, who was ten years of age and who saw the ad at 8:29pm during The Gadget Show on Channel 5, thought the ad was distressing and was inappropriately scheduled.

ASA Assessment : Complaint Upheld

The ASA noted Clearcasts assertion that, apart from the scene where a man had blood on his hand, the viewer did not see any more blood or scenes of injury or death. However, we also noted that many of the scenes showed people in distress and in physical danger.

We considered that, although the ad was clearly for a film and therefore based in fantasy, the scenes of people in the cinema - particularly those where they were suddenly trapped by metal restraints and where the figure reached out and pulled a cinema-goer back towards the screen - linked the scenes from the film with a recognisably real situation. We considered it was therefore likely to cause distress to young children who might not make a clear distinction between the scenes from the film and the scenes in the cinema, and a post 7.30pm restriction was not sufficient. We concluded that a post 9pm restriction ought to have been applied, to minimise the possibility of young children seeing the ad.

The ad breached BCAP Code rules:

• 4.1 (Harm and Offence),
• 5.1 (Children), 32.1, and
• 32.3 (Scheduling of Television and Radio Advertisements).