Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2015 | Page 70

Cases reviewed in 2015

People who originally made a complaint , or the advertiser who the complaint was made against , may ask for an independent review of the determination if they meet the criteria for the process .
The independent review is not a merit review of a Board decision .
Reviews may be undertaken if the request is about at least one or all of the following grounds .
• Where new or additional relevant evidence which could have a significant bearing on the determination becomes available . An explanation of why this information was not submitted previously must be provided .
• Where there was a substantial flaw in the
Precis of cases reviewed
Sportsbet - Case number 0449 / 15
A request by the advertiser for an independent review claimed there was a substantial flaw in the Board ’ s determination insofar as there was a manifest error regarding the interpretation and application of section 2.6 of the Code to the Advertisement . After reviewing the advertisement and arguments contained in the appeal the Independent Reviewer considered that the arguments contained in the appeal did not establish a substantial flaw in the Board ’ s decision . The Independent Reviewer considered there was no basis advanced for requiring the ASB to reconsider its conclusion other than the advertiser disagreed with the Board ’ s determination and accordingly the review request was not accepted .
Breitling Boutiques - Case number 0339 / 15
In reconsidering this case , the Board considered the mannequin is presented as a woman who is cheerful and happy and that the depiction of the woman does not lower women in character or quality and in the Board ’ s view is not a degrading image of women . The Board considered that the advertisement did not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative and degrading towards women and did not breach section 2.2 of the Code . The Board went on to acknowledge that the location of the store and the size of the display would mean that in this case the audience would include children , however reconfirmed the advertisement did treat the issue of sex , sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant broad audience and did not breach Section 2.4 of the Code . In view of this the Board determined that the advertisement did not breach the Code and dismissed the complaint . Its original determination to dismiss the complaints remained
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
in place .