Charla DilanASA Research Task

Introduction QuestionsASA stands for Advertising Standards Authority and is the UKs regulator for advertising across all media. As ASA are responsible for making sure that all of the advertisements in the UK are meeting the public standards, they have five strands in a simple strategy to regulate everything properly. The five key strands in the strategy are understanding, support, impact, proactive and awareness. ASA protects children by allowing thousands of families to view certain ads to make sure that they are eligible to be shown on day time television, if an advertisement is not suitable then ASA are able to work together and tackle the problem. In order to protect children, ASA are very careful and regulate things such as television, radio, magazines, email, websites, newspapers and even posters; therefore, they have extra precautions meaning that it is safe for a minor.

Case study (1)The name of the company is called Department of Energy and Climate Change and they released their advertisement on the 17th March in 2010. All in all, this particular advert Act on CO2 reached 939 complaints which is very high. The centre complaint was that the advert was misleading as it involved a person persuade climate change which could never happen; therefore, it was false.

In the Act on CO2 advert, it shows a little girls dad reading a story to her before she goes to bed, the book is about climate change and how it is damaging everything around us. In the book, as the father is reading it shows how some places are having extreme heat waves and others having floods, the camera once every so often cuts to the daughters reaction shot and shows her looking worried but interested. They used facts and statistics in the advert so the audience address that it is a very real problem that needs to be helped out, even in the book it shows the characters using hairdryers to portray that what we do as humans is bad. At the very end the little girls looks up to her father and asks is there a happy ending? which lets the audience know that there is hope and we can all do something about the issue.

Some of the complaints that were made are: The ad was political in nature and should not be broadcast The theme and content of the ad could be distressing for children who saw it The ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching television The claim over 40% of the CO2 was coming from ordinary everyday things was misleading The claims about the possible advent of strange weather and flooding in the UK, and associated imagery, were exaggerated, distressing and misleading. The advertising codes that were broken were that before any advert can be released they must hold documentary evidence to prove all of their claims. Also, they must make sure to claim non-fiction books, tapes and videos so that the advertisement is not misleading; however, these procedures were obviously not made otherwise the public wouldnt have reported it as exaggerate and misleading. CAP Cope (Edition 11)3.13.27.19.19.249.149.3

BCAP TV Code5.1.15.1.25.2.15.2.66.16.47.4.17.4.67.4.7

BCAP TV Scheduling Code4.2.3

ASA acknowledged some of the complaints and were concerned that children or grandchildren may be upset by the ad and that the made up animated storybook imagery and narrative might be alarming for some young people who saw it. ASA concluded, when shown in the context of the timing restriction applied by Clearcast, the ad was unlikely to cause harm or undue distress to children. The ASA had also done an investigation about the advert about the Truthfulness and Environmental claims but did not find it in breach. Therefore, ASA had taken no action towards this complaint; however, they had noted that the ad had been an ex-kids by Clearcast meaning it should not be broadcasted whilst younger children are watching TV or put on Children specialised channels.

Case study (2)The company Department of Health released a cancer advert on the 2nd June 2010 which reached only two complaints and the centre complaint was that women are three times more likely to get mouth cancer. The advert shows two women at home sharing a bottle of wine; however, one of the women is shown so that we can see her internal organs so that the audience can see the damage it is doing with the overall message being drinking causes damaged you cant see. The advert involves facts so that the audience can take it seriously and possibly look further into the problem if they are worried.

The advert has been complained about and reported as misleading, especially with women are three more times likely to get mouth cancer. It shows a womans internal organs as she is drinking her glass of wine and exaggerates the damage of what alcohol can do if you are not drinking it excessively; also, it mentions being more likely to have a stroke as it then cuts to the womens brain developing damage.BCAP TV Code5.1.15.2.1

ASA had acknowledged the references made by the company in which they did consider the risks of alcohol consumptions and also, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence stated that alcohol consumption is an important risk factor when it comes to cancers of the mouth meaning that the facts were necessary. The risk would become even greater if the advert was about tobacco. Clearcast considered the risks being exaggerated or misleading; however, Clearcast sent their medical consultant who confirmed that the claims are not false or misleading in any way. Therefore, nothing was seen as a breach meaning no action was necessary.

Case Study Linkshttp://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/10/Department-of-Energy-and-Climate-Change/SHP_ADJ_258066.aspxhttp://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/7/LOreal-(UK)-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48743.aspxhttp://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/2/Lifescan-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48050.aspxhttp://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/3/Department-of-Energy-and-Climate-Change/TF_ADJ_48225.aspxhttp://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/6/Department-of-Health/TF_ADJ_48538.aspx