Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 | Page 45

that the people were under 18 years of age. In this
instance the Board view was the advertisement
was not directed at children and did not depict or
encourage under age alcohol consumption.
Community concern about gambling continued
in 2014. In making its determination the Board
considers the genuine community concern
regarding excessive gambling and notes the
problems associated with gambling for certain
members of society. While no cases were found
to breach the Code in 2014 in relation to this
issue the Board expressed the need for advertisers
to take care not to encourage the idea that
gambling is more important than anything else
(Tabcorp – 0324/14). In this case the Board view
was that showing a game on which someone has
placed a bet being more interesting than a cat was
intended to be humorous and was not suggesting
that gambling is more important than issues of
real concern.
Other cases dismissed in relation to concerns
about promoting excessive gambling included
advertisements for an online gambling agency
(Ladbroke.com.au – 0355/14 and 0443/14) which
promoted its account card, another describing a
bet ting offer (Sportsbet – 0405/14) titled “BetTember”, and an advertisement with a theme of
striving to do better (Tom Waterhouse – 0426/14)

Bullying (non-violent)
Behaviour which may be considered bullying is
considered by the Board under Section 2.6 (health
and safety) for non-violent bullying or Section 2.3
for violent acts.
Concerns about two women making derogatory
remarks about each other’s height were considered
in relation to non-violent bullying (Fosters
Australia, Asia & Pacific – 0086/14). Noting that
the height difference is exaggerated to increase
the comical side of the banter between the two,
that neither woman seemed visually upset by their
banter and that they both continue to effectively
work throughout the encounter the Board viewed
the depiction of the two women as light-hearted
and comical rather than an episode of bullying.

Review of Operations 2014

A reference to another woman as a “cow” also
raised concerns about bullying behaviour (Yum
Restaurants International – 0064/14). The
advertisement depicted women sharing lunch and
chatting with the voiceover commenting that it is
easier to say some things over lunch like, “Tracey’s
such a cow”. The Board considered that while the
reference to a woman as a cow was not the best
example the advertiser could have used, overall the
comment was an example of women chatting and
gossiping rather than bullying behaviour.

Unsafe driving

An advertisement depicting the antics of men
(Lion – 0096/14) was also considered in relation
to complaints that it depicted bullying behaviour.
A group of four young men are depicted on an
island with a voiceover explaining the etiquette
they need to abide to while staying there. In one
scene the men move someone while they are
sleeping due to the lack of “personal space”. There
is no physical contact between the men which in
the Board’s view would be considered violent or
inappropriate. Noting that the four men in the
advertisement are portrayed as mates the Board
view was that the most likely interpretation of
the advertisement was that it depicts behaviour
consistent with mates hanging out and teasing
one another rather than bullying.

Pay‑TV (Valvoline (Aust) Pty Ltd – 0150/14
and 0192/14) depicted characters driving
various vehicles repeatedly doing ‘burnouts’ in
front of a group. The Board considered that the
advertisement was not clear in its message about
choosing the right oil for your car, but more
strongly suggestive of the types of ways a car
could be driven. In its view the advertisement
depicted scenes that young adults would relate
to and that the approach did undermine the
importance of driving carefully and within
the law. These advertisement were modified
by the advertiser and further complaints were
received (Valvoline (Aust) Pty Ltd – 0327/14
and 0328/14). In the modified versions there
are no depictions of driving practices such as
burnouts. Although scenes show the vehicle
seemingly being driven at speed, the Board noted
there was no indication of the speed the vehicles
are travelling and that the vehicles remain in
control at all times. Overall, the Board viewed
the modified versions as not depicting material
contrary to prevailing community standards on
safety, specifically responsible driving.

One other case was considered in relation to nonviolent bullying (Yum Restaurants – 0055/14).
The advertisement includes a scene of a man’s
cubicle filled with packing foam with another
workmate taking a photo of the situation. Directly
following that scene, the man is seen happily
eating lunch with his work peers. The Board view
was that this would be considered by most as a
practical joke and that harmless practical jokes are
common among workplace environments.
An advertisement featuring a woman gloating to a
young child that she has beaten her at table tennis
(Campbell’s Australia – 0529/14) was viewed
by the Board as not portraying, condoning or
encouraging bullying behavior, but as one which
took a light-hearted tone in which it was made
clear the woman was behaving badly.

Complaints about motor vehicle advertisements
are considered under the FCAI code, but
advertisements which are not for cars but include
driving scenes may be considered under Section
2.6 for Health and Safety concerns.
Complaints about an advertisement which
the Board viewed as encouraging the unsafe
practice of burnouts or drifting were upheld.
The advertisement shown on Free TV and

Exaggerated and unrealistic footage along with
comical, light-hearted fantasy were not viewed as
encouraging or condoning illegal driving practices.
One advertisement (National Australia Bank Ltd
– 0040/14) used scenes taken from a TV series
filmed in the 1970s , the “Dukes of Hazard”. The
Board considered that younger viewers seeing
the advertisement would recognise the footage as
being old‑fashioned and stylised and that the clear
exaggerated and unrealistic nature of the footage
made it obvious that the scene is a stunt from an
old‑style television program and not a depiction
that would be considered contrary to prevailing
community standards on health and safety. The
other depicted an older couple (McDonald’s Aust

43