Brands behaving (not too) badly: Big players on extended run of staying on Ad Standards’ right side

BY Tim Burrowes

July 17, 2023 10:19

Brands behaving (not too) badly: Big players on extended run of staying on Ad Standards’ right side

Welcome to Tuesdata, our weekly analysis for Unmade’s paying members.

Below, we examine the Ad Standards rulings that went against the big brands in the last quarter. Brands mentioned include KFC, KIA, Sportsbet and Foxtel.

Plus, a mostly good day on The Unmade Index.

The content of the full post is available only to Unmade’s paying members. That could be you. Not only can you see today’s members-only edition of Tuesdata, but you get access to the full Unmade archive, which goes behind a paywall two months after publishing. Unmade members also get $108 off earlybird tickets to our retail media conference RE:Made which returns in October. The discount code is beneath the paywall.

The first half of 2023’s Ad Standards deliberations

Seja Al Zaidi writes

We’re past the halfway mark of 2023, and so far, Ad Standards has published 116 case determinations.

The trend of fewer complaints from the public, and far fewer complaints upheld against mainstream brands has continued.

Funded via the Australian Association of National Advertisers, Ad Standards is the industry body which arbitrates on complaints about advertising on any medium aimed at the Australian public.

Of those 116, 41 cases (35.3%) were determined upheld and 75 (64.6%) were dismissed.

The most commonly complained about brands were Foxtel Group’s Binge and Honey Birdette, both tallying five published cases investigations each for the year to date.

Upheld cases from big end of town: KFC, Kia and Sportsbet

Big brands are either being more careful to follow the rules, or are less likely to attract complaints than previously as media continues to fragment. These are the cases which tripped up the big brands:

KFC

KFC was forced to adapt the way they showed this power board in a TV ad

KFC was ordered to modify a TV ad that featured a dangerously overloaded power board.

A viewer complained that encouraging the practice represented “significant risks to people’s lives and property”.

The complainant went on to explain their stance:

The advertisement shows multiple power boards and double adapters being plugged into a single power board, which is a clear depiction of an overloaded power board. This is a dangerous practice that can lead to a variety of risks including electric shock, damage to electronic devices, and even house fires.
By showing the use of an overloaded power board, the advertisement might mislead viewers, especially young people, to think that such a practice is safe or acceptable.

KFC argued the ad merely showed “a humorous moment in an otherwise awkward social setting.”

But the panel ruled: “An overloaded powerboard such as the one in the advertisement would be considered by most members of the community to be normalising if not promoting unsafe behaviour.”

Kia Australia

Kia had to modify an advertisement that depicted a vehicle driving on a sealed winding road, and then on an unsealed road.

The complaint was succint “Encouraging fast driving even in unsafe conditions… Speed kills”.

The advertising regulations preclude depictions of ‘unsafe driving’ in car ads.

Kia argued that the ad did not show unsafe driving, but was overruled by the panel which concluded: “To the viewer of the advertisement the car appeared to be travelling very fast around the corners and close to the edges of the narrow winding road.” It added: “This scene was undermining important road safety messages about driving to conditions”.

Sportsbet

One April determination found that Sportsbet was in breach of Section 2.7 of the Wagering Code overt its ‘Same Day Multi’ TV ad. The rule bands ads that suggest wagering makes somebond more attractive.

Given that a federal ban on gambling ads could become a feasible reality in the near future, gambling companies are under intense scrutiny. This ad where a man is shown to win his bet on his phone with a voice-over saying “feels like you’ve finally made it” before he receives a “Most Outstanding Same Game Multi” award at a ceremony.

Sportsbet defended the advertisement:

“The reaction of the crowd to the winner’s announcement and acceptance speech for a $50 winning bet cannot sensibly be interpreted as encouraging risky behaviour or peer pressuring others to engage in wagering activities.”

The panel rejected that, noting the ad ‘implies you’re one bet away from winning big’, ‘encourages peer pressure to gamble,’ and ‘depicts adoration of fans because of the win’. The ruling document, which is 17 pages long (almost twice the length of a standard case) shows that the Panel confirmed its original determination.

Foxtel

Foxtel was the subject of an upheld complaint where the classic trope of transformation via removing a pair of glasses and untying one’s hair rubbed a spectacle-wearing consumer the wrong way.

The complainant rejected the premise of glasses diminishing one’s attractiveness:

The girl wears glasses but boy doesn’t notice her until she takes her glasses off. I feel it doesn’t set a good example for girls or boys who have to wear glasses. It’s saying that you can’t get a boy or girl if you wear glasses. It implies that people are more attractive if they do not wear glasses. It infers that like the old saying “men never make passes at girls who wear glasses”. We tell girls that looks don’t matter, then show an ad like this one.”

The ad, which was produced internally by Foxtel Creative, was discontinued as a result of the complaint.

The Panel found that the advertisement breached Section 2.1 of the AANA Code of Ethics, which states that ‘advertising shall not portray people or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, disability, mental illness or political belief’.

Despite the conclusion that ‘the advertisement did not show a harmful gender stereotype’, it was ultimately found to ‘portray or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of disability’.

Earlier this year, Foxtel Group’s Binge had complaints over depictions of violence upheld over an ad featuring a clip from the show Upright in which a woman kicks a man in the testicles while captions including the phrase “That’s gonna hurt!” and “Well deserved!” were superimposed.

Meanwhile, Honey Birdette, notorious for its risque storefront imagery and racy lingerie advertisements, was the most commonly complained about brand in the cases raised from the last six months.

Ad Standards struggles to hold brands such as Honey Birdette and Wicked Campers to its rules because they use their own physical assets such as storefronts and vehicles and have not agreed to be part of the self-regulatory system.

Unmade Index starts the week smoothly

It was a mostly positive start to the week for the Unmade Index, our measurement of how Aussie media and marketing stocks are performing. Most of the largest stocks rose in share price, leading the overall Index to rise 0.54% to land at 673.7 points.

However, the biggest stock on the Index, Nine, faltered, dropping 0.47%. Southern Cross Media saw a 0.52% dip.

On the flip side, Seven West Media scored a 2.7% lift in share price, while Domain rose 2.41%. Enero Group’s beleaguered stock had a better day, rising 6.67%, while audio player ARN Media lifted 1.89%.