Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 | Page 29

The Board’s view
Applying the Codes
and Initiatives
When considering complaints about advertising,
the Advertising Standards Board is bound by
sections 2 and 3 of the AANA Code of Ethics,
and a number of additional industry codes and
initiatives. These Codes determine what issues the
Board can look at when considering complaints.
These issues fall broadly into 10 categories:
•

discrimination

•

u
se of sexual appeal

•

violence

•

p
ortrayal of sex, sexuality and nudity

•

u
se of language

•

h
ealth and safety

•

a
dvertising to children (including the
AANA Code for Advertising and Marketing
to Children)

•

m
otor vehicle advertising (the FCAI
Voluntar y Code for Advertising of
Motor Vehicles

•

f
ood and beverages (including the AANA
Food and Beverages Marketing and
Communications Code, the Quick Service
Restaurant Initiative and the Australian Food
and Grocery Council Initiative)

•

e
nvironmental (AANA Environmental
Claims in Advertising and Marketing Code).

Review of Operations 2014

Discrimination or vilification
(Section 2.1, AANA Code
of  Ethics)
Section 2.1 is a broad category which includes
discrimination or vilification on the basis of
age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, physical
characteristics, mental illness, disability,
occupation, religion, sexual preference or lifestyle
choice. It is important for advertisers to note that
depictions of any section of society may raise
concerns of discrimination, especially if groups
are presented in a negative manner. Although
the use of humour and a light hearted nature in
advertisements has in certain cases lessened the
impact of the overall message, if the Board views
the advertisement as discriminatory against any
group it will breach Section 2.1.
The issue of discrimination and vilification
attracted 27.61 per cent of complaints in 2014.

Discrimination against age
In 2014 the Board received complaints about a
television advertisement depicting an older man
becoming angry after falling off a motorbike
(Mars Confectionery - 0133/14). The complainant
thought the advertisement disparaged the
appearance of an old person and was ageist. The
Board noted the man’s friends call him a “cranky
old man” but considered this was directed more
at the character the actor in the advertisement
is known for than at older men in general. The
Board viewed the use of well-known people
playing the parts of people acting differently
due to hunger lessened the extent to which
their behaviour could be seen as a reflection of
behaviour undertaken by people of a particular
gender, age or demographic. The Board had
previously dismissed advertisements from the
same advertiser where people are depicted
behaving differently (mostly negatively) when
they are hungry (0439/10 and 0084/13).
An advertisement featuring a short-sighted
exercise instructor accidently giving a Zumba class
to a group of elderly people who were gathered
to play Bingo (Specsavers - 0172/14) raised
concerns about vilification—ridicule—of the
elderly. The Board considered that while the older
people were depicted as being there for Bingo,
they were shown taking part in and enjoying the
Zumba class. The Board considered that while
the suggestion that older people like Bingo is a
stereotype the advertisement portrayed a positive
depiction of older people which was empowering
and not demeaning. The Board had previously
dismissed similar advertisements featuring people
making mistakes because they weren’t able to see
properly in cases 0283/11 and 0213/12.

27