A TV ad for Boost, an energy provider, seen in February 2018, promoted a prepayment energy smart meter. The ad began with a woman holding a torch whilst trying to turn on her light switch. The next scene featured an Asian man standing in a Kung Fu
stance in a yellow jumpsuit similar to the jumpsuits worn by Bruce Lee. On-screen yellow text stated BOOST LEE IN 'FINGER OF FURY' accompanied by Chinese text which translated to finger of fury. Smaller on-screen text stated MMXVIII Bruce Lee Rights/TM
Bruce Lee Enterprises. The man screamed and held his phone out saying Tap me. The woman then also screamed and performed a Kung Fu action and tapped the phone. The next scene showed the man teaching the woman how to perform Kung Fu actions whilst saying,
It's like a finger pointing away to the bulb. Concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory. Top up your power anytime, anywhere with Boost pay as you go energy. Don't think, switch.Issue A complainant, who
believed the ad featured outdated racial stereotypes, challenged whether the ad was offensive and condoned harmful discriminatory behaviour and was scheduled inappropriately. ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld
The ASA noted that the ad featured a character named Boost Lee wearing a yellow jumpsuit, teaching martial arts. The character was seen performing different Kung Fu stances while screaming and encouraging the female character to mimic
those actions. We considered that viewers would understand that the character was intended to resemble Bruce Lee. We understood the complainant was concerned that the comedic portrayal of Bruce Lee in that manner, including the
use of an exaggerated Chinese accent with Ku Fung screams perpetuated the racial stereotype that all Chinese people were Kung Fu experts and spoke in a similar style. However, we noted that the ad did not contain any general references to Chinese people
and therefore considered that viewers were likely to understand that the ad was specifically parodying Bruce Lee rather than Chinese people generally. We considered the ad was likely to be interpreted as light-hearted and humorous and therefore was
unlikely to encourage the mocking or belittling of Chinese people. We further considered that because the ad did not contain anything derogatory and did not mock Chinese people, the content of the ad was suitable for children to
see and therefore did not require a scheduling restriction. We concluded that the ad did not condone or encourage harmful discriminatory behaviour or treatment of Chinese people and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread
offence. We also concluded that the ad was scheduled appropriately.
|