Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2016 2016 Review of operations_WEB - Page 64

Independent review Cases reviewed in 2016 Precis of cases reviewed People who originally made a complaint, or the advertiser the complaint was made against, may ask for an Independent Review of the determination if they meet the criteria for the process. Tabcorp - Camping trip (November 2016) Case number 0447/16 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 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). Where there was a substantial flaw in the process by which the determination was made. In 2016, three cases submitted for the Independent Review process were finalised. The full case reports are available on the Advertising Standards Bureau website. In this case the initial Board determination was to uphold complaints. A review was requested by the advertiser, with the Independent Reviewer recommending that the initial Board determination be confirmed. Time taken to complete the review was 15 days. Ultra Tune - Train track modified (May 2016) Case number 0175/16 In reconsidering the case the Board specifically considered the elements outlined in the AANA Practice Note for Section 2.1: Discrimination – unfair or less favourable treatment; and Vilification – humiliates, intimidates, incites hatred, contempt or ridicule of women. The Board noted the Macquarie Dictionary definition of ridicule: - “1. Words or actions intended to excite contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; 2. To deride”. The Board considered that the advertisement ridicules people of a certain group, namely women, and depicts women in a manner which suggests they are unintelligent, unable to recognise a dangerous situation and presents women as ridiculous. The Board determined to uphold complaints. Time taken to complete the review was 40 days. In this case the initial Board determination was to uphold complaints. A review was requested by the advertiser, with the Independent Reviewer recommending that the initial Board determination be confirmed. Time taken to complete the review was 19 days. Ultra Tune - Train track (February 2016) Case number 0020/16 In this case the initial Board determination was to uphold complaints. A review was requested by the advertiser, with the Independent Reviewer recommending that the Board review its original determination. On reviewing its original determination the Board noted the determination of the Independent Reviewer which recommended that the Board: Review its consideration under Section 2.1 giving more precision to its consideration of the definition of vilification, the use of humour and the effect the final scene in the advertisement has on the overall tone. 62 Advertising Standards Bureau