Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 - Page 67

The Independent Reviewer considered that the Board must make its determination based on the content of an advertisement as it stands, regardless of any back-story suggested by the advertiser and that in this case the Board had given proper consideration to the settings of the advertisement (informal gatherings of families and friends). However, the Independent Reviewer considered the Board had failed to provide any indication in its determination that it considered “whether members of the community in the target audience would most likely take a message condoning excess consumption” as required by Practice Note 2.2 and for this reason recommended that the Board reconsider its decision. In reconsidering this case, the Board maintained the strong view that the amount of food shown in the advertisement normalised large portion sizes and was disproportionate for the settings portrayed, but noted there was no depiction of people eating to excess. In view of this the Board considered that the target audience would not take a message condoning excess consumption and did not breach Section 2.2 of the Food Code but noted that its original determination to uphold the advertisement under S1.1 of the QSRI remained in place. Witchery - Case number 0136/14 A request for an independent review from the advertiser claimed there was a substantial flaw in the process by which the determination was made. The request specifically claimed that the Board had given undue weight to the model’s skirt length and angle of the image and failed to consider that the still image captures the model dancing and had not referenced the video which features the model dancing. In recommending that the Board’s original decision be confirmed the Independent Reviewer noted that the Board’s determination was based not simply on the length of the skirt but also on the model’s legs being apart, rendering the pose “more adult than child-like” and that the camera angle used highlighted the shortness of the skirt and that this combination of elements was reflected in the Board’s comment that: “overall the image amounted to a depiction of a child which is sexualised and is therefore not appropriate”. In addition the Independent Reviewer noted that the Board acted properly in wholly concentrating its consideration on the still image and not the video, as the video was not the advertisement subject to the original complaint. Advertising Standards Bureau - outline of requests for independent review 2014 CASE INITIAL BOARD DETERMINATION INDEPENDENT REVIEWER RECOMMENDATION BOARD DETERMINATION ON REVIEW (if appropriate) TIME TAKEN TO COMPLETE REVIEW In March 2011, ASB accepted a recommendation from the Review of the Independent Reviewer process that timeliness of the process should be made publicly available. The times indicated below refer to the time between ASB receipt of the request for review to notification of final case report. Kittens Car Wash Summer billboard Case number - 0437/14 Complaints Dismissed November 2014 Independent Reviewer declined to accept the request as it did not meet grounds for review 3 business days Valvoline Hoon driving Case number - 0192/14 Complaints Upheld May 2014 Independent Review declined to accept the request as it did not meet grounds for review 4 business days YUM Excess consumption Case number - 0154/14 Complaints Upheld May 2014 Independent Reviewer recommended Board review its original determination June 2014 Witchery (Witchery Kids) Case number - 0136/14 Complaints Upheld April 2014 Independent Reviewer recommended initial Board determination be confirmed June 2014 Review of Operations 2014 Upheld 24 business days 15 business days 65