Two recent ASA adjudications have provided the advertising industry with a useful reminder of how important it is for advertisers always to consider the impact that their adverts may have on younger viewers. By comparing the two decisions it is evident that the ASA appears to be more likely to take a firmer stance on adverts that may pose a risk (albeit even a small one) to the health and safety of such viewers than on those which do not, but which may nonetheless be distressing.

The first of the two decisions was in relation to an advert for the car manufacturer Citroën. In the advert, a large crowd of cyclists is seen pursuing a Citroën C4 until, at a junction, the C4 pulls away from the cyclists leaving them visibly disappointed (that is, of course, until they spot another C4 travelling in a different direction).

The complaint to the ASA arose after a viewer noticed that none of the cyclists featured in the advert was wearing a helmet. The complainant argued that this might encourage or condone behaviour which could be detrimental to the health and safety of younger viewers and questioned the appropriateness of broadcasting the advert at times when children were likely to be watching television.

In its response to the complaint, Citroën noted that Clearcast, the NGO which pre-approves most British television advertising, did not currently require adult cyclists to wear helmets because it was not a legal requirement in the UK at the time for them to do so. It also point out that Clearcast did not normally place scheduling restrictions on adverts featuring adult cyclists. In addition, Citroën argued that because:

1. the cyclists featured in the advert were not shown to be riding in a dangerous manner;
   
2. no other vehicles were shown in the immediate vicinity of the cyclists; and
   
3. the advert did not feature children,

the advert did not promote poor cycling practices for adults or children.

However, the ASA held that, while older children would appreciate the fantastical nature of the advert due to the sheer volume of cyclists shown pursuing the C4 in unison, younger children may not. As a result, the ASA felt that the advert might encourage children to "emulate behaviour prejudicial to their health and safety" and so should not be broadcast at times when young children were likely to be watching.

The second decision was in relation to an advert by Telfonica O2 UK Limited. In the advert, an O2 customer changes into a winged demon-like creature after finding out that an O2 offer is only available to new customers. The customer only returns to her normal state after a faun assures her that the offer will be made available to all O2 customers. The complaint to the ASA in this instance was made by a viewer who felt that the metamorphosis of the O2 customer into a demon-like creature would be distressing to younger viewers.

When asked to inform the ASA why it had cleared the advert, Clearcast said that it believed that the creature was similar to a character that might appear in a fairy tale, Disney film or pantomime and that, as a result, it felt that the brief shot of the demon-like creature would not be frightening for children as they would be used to seeing such characters. O2 meanwhile commented that, because Clearcast had not suggested any scheduling restrictions to ensure that the advert did not frighten or distress younger viewers, O2 believed that the advert did not present a risk to younger viewers.

Luckily for O2, the ASA agreed with Clearcast's reasoning in this instance, and stated that, whilst potentially unsettling to small children, the advert would not be distressing because the brief transformation of the O2 customer took place in a fantastical scenario and ended with the O2 customer visibly happy and content following her return to human form.

Although the O2 advert might appear at first glance to be the more obviously harmful advert for younger viewers, the approach adopted by the ASA in refusing to ban it, shows that the ASA will not always adopt a nanny-like approach to adverts affecting children. However, what is equally clear is that, where an advert could present a potential health and safety risk to children, the ASA will, quite rightly, be far more cautious. Advertisers should therefore take time to consider the effects that their adverts may have on younger viewers, especially since what might be harmful to such viewers may not always be obvious.

17 May 2011