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 ( – 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