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People who originally made a complaint, or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