Board ’ s determination ( determination clearly in error having regard to the provisions of the
Codes or Initiatives , or clearly made against the weight of evidence ).
|
A request by a complainant for an independent review claimed there was a substantial flaw in the process by which the determination was made .
The request made a number of claims , most
|
South African Tourism – Case number
0148 / 15
A request by a complainant for independent
|
|
• |
Where there was a substantial flaw in the relevant that the Board failed to properly follow review claimed there was a substantial flaw in the |
||
process by which the determination was made . |
the AANA Practice Note for section 2.2 of the |
process by which the determination was made . |
|
Code in reaching its determination ; and secondly |
The request specifically claimed the Board had |
||
In 2015 , four cases submitted for the independent |
did not give proper consideration to the relevant |
considered only one advertisement where two had |
|
review process were finalised . |
audience under consideration of section 2.4 . |
been complained about . The request also claimed |
|
that information in the initial advertiser response |
|||
A précis of the cases reviewed is available here . The |
The Independent Reviewer considered that there |
was unsubstantiated , and provided additional |
|
full case reports are available on the Advertising |
were two substantial flaws in the process evident in |
information to refute this . |
|
Standards Bureau website . |
the Board ’ s determination : the failure to consider |
||
whether there was a breach of Code section 2.2 |
The Independent Reviewer did not accept that |
||
in the Board ’ s failure to deal explicitly with the |
the additional evidence would have a significant |
||
DES
NSUMERS
CIAL MEDIA
EPENDENT
VERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY
USTRY TRAINING
NSPORT BRIDGING
ISING
INTEGRITY
CINEMA NDARDSPEOPLE
|
complaint that the pose , dress and placement of the mannequin on a bomb was demeaning of women because it was exploitative and degrading ; and second , the Board did not with sufficient precision indicate who was the relevant audience and how much weight the Board attached to that issue under Code section 2.4 and for these reasons recommended that the Board reconsider |
bearing on the determination , as the Board ’ s determination was made in relation to the image itself and its effect on those who viewed it , not the advertiser ’ s response . The Independent Reviewer considered there was no basis advanced for requiring the ASB to reconsider its conclusion and accordingly the review request was not accepted . |
|
NSUMERS ADAPTABLE EDUCATORS SOCIAL MEDIA
OPERATING BILLBOARDS ASSOCIATING
|
its decision . |
||
TERMINATION TRANSPORT EDUCATORS CODES |
|||
ITING REPORTS
CONSUMERS
COMMUNICATING
|
|||
COUNTABILITY RESEARCH INTERNET RELIABLE |
|||
F-REGULATE
68
RESPONSIVE
MEMBERS
TELEVISION
RGING
BILLBOARDSTRANSPARENCY
RADIO
COMPLAINT
PARTNERING
|
Advertising Standards Bureau |
||
VERTISERSPOSTERS
COMMUNITY DETERMINATION OUTDOOR
|