Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2015

as it would be “a different advertisement on a different medium”. The complainant did not take the opportunity to make a further complaint about the second advertisement. DETERMINATION TRANSPORT EDUCATORS TRANSPARENCY COMMUNICATING TRANSPARENCY RADIO COMPLAINT PARTNERING SELF-REGULATE POSTERS COMMUNITY DETERMINATION OUTDOOR INDEPENDENT PEOPLE ADVERTISERS RESPONSIVE MEMBERS TELEVISION INITIATIVES ACCOUNTABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS INTERNET RELIABLE GOVERNMENT UNITING REPORTS CONSUMERS COMMUNICATING ACCESSIBLE LIAISING TELEVISION COOPERATING ACCOUNTABILITY MERGING COMMUNICATING SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY COMMUNITY EDUCATING SELF-REGULATE LIAISING COMPLAINT DETERMINATION CONSOLIDATING STANDARDS ADVERTISERS BILLBOARDS AUTHORITY POSTERS DETERMINATION INDEPENDENT SELF-REGULATE EDUCATING BILLBOARDS GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT PARTNERING TRANSPORT RADIO BUSINESS BONDING The Independent Reviewer acknowledged that while the complainant may have intended for both advertisements to be considered, that ASB staff had confirmed that a separate case would have to be raised in respect of the second advertisement MPM Marketing - Case number 0139/15 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 specifically raised questions around specific quotes in the Boards determination. For a substantial flaw in the Board’s determination to be established, there must be evidence that the determination was clearly in error having regard to the provisions of the Code, or clearly made against the weight of evidence. Merely posing a question in relation to one of the Board’s findings does not amount to providing evidence that the determination of the Board was clearly in error in terms of the Code provisions or clearly against the weight of evidence. The Independent Reviewer found there was no evidence of a substantial flaw in the process and accordingly the review request was not accepted. Advertising Standards Bureau - outline of requests for independent review 2015 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. Sportsbet Sunburn Case number 0449/15 Complaints Upheld November 2015 Independent Reviewer recommended initial Board determination be confirmed December 2015 Breitling Boutiques Window mannequin Case number 0339/15 Complaints Dismissed September 2015 Independent Reviewer recommended Board review its original determination October 2015 South African Tourism Missing teeth Case number 0148/15 Complaints Dismissed April 2015 Independent Reviewer recommended initial Board determination be confirmed June 2015 22 business days MPM Marketing Paper cups Case number 0139/15 Complaints Dismissed April 2015 Independent Reviewer recommended initial Board determination be confirmed July 2015 15 business days Review of Operations 2015 14 business days Dismissed 32 business days 69

Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2015 | Page 71