Category: Advertising Standards Authority

Source: Advertising Standards Authority

Headline: ASA Office Evacuated: All Staff Working Remotely

The ASA office was evacuated on 12/04/18 due to structural building concerns and all our staff are currently working remotely.

Please use email asa@asa.co.nz to contact us and we apologise if there is any delay in responding to your query. We are confident that there will be minimal disruption to our service.

Source: Advertising Standards Authority

Headline: New Decisions: Cultural Stereotypes, Harmful Bacteria and More

The following decisions have been published:

• Complaint 17/419 Cordbank New Zealand, Digital Marketing: Settled – advertisement amended
• Complaint 18/052 Lion-Beer, Spirits & Wine (NZ) Limited, Out of Home: Not Upheld
• Complaint 18/062 Sacred New Zealand, Out of Home: Settled – advertisement amended/removed
• Complaint 18/069 McDonalds, Print: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/070 Osmosis Skin Care, Digital Marketing, Settled – advertisement amended/removed
• Complaint 18/072 Save the Children, Television: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/073 20th Century Fox, Television: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/077 Good Health Naturally New Zealand, Television: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/080 Innerlife Church, Poster: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/088 Holden, Television: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/089 Colgate Palmolive Pty Ltd, Television: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/090 Unilever Australasia, Television: No Grounds to Proceed

Statement Not Culturally Degrading
The billboard advertisement for Coruba Rum showed people on a street, including two people on a bike and one kicking a soccer ball. The words “wi bizzy chillin” is displayed on the left-hand side and an image of the product, a Coruba bottle and the brand slogan “A taste of Jamaica”.

The Complainant was concerned the wording in the advertisement “wi bizzy chillin” was culturally degrading stating: “Accents are one thing, but misspelling words to enhance an exotic accent perpetuates an us vs them mentality where those with accents unlike our own are wrong, not just different.”

The Advertiser said the statement in the advertisement “wi bizzy chillin” was a Jamaican Patois translation for similar kiwi terms, such as ‘sweet as’, ‘choice’, ‘she’ll be right’ and ‘chill out’. It is a common Jamaican expression and the spelling is taken from actual spelling of the Jamaican Patois language.

The Complaints Board noted the advertisement was for a Jamaican made rum which featured a strong Jamaican theme and people. The Complaints Board said the advertisement was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and the advertisement was not in breach of the Advertising Codes. Accordingly, the complaint was Not Upheld.

Advertisement Provides Parents Options
A television advertisement for Protex soap showed a mother and daughter in the garden and said “My little girl loves playing and exploring outside, but I worry that it might dry out her skin and expose her to harmful bacteria.” The mother says she uses Protex soap to “protect my little explorer.”

The Complainant said the advertisement was offensive because it implied that exposure to the outdoors was bad for children. The Complainant was also concerned the product contained the ingredient Triclosan because they believed it may have negative effects for users.

In considering the complaint, the Chair referred to precedent Decision 16/142, which was not upheld by the Complaints Board. The Chair said the reference to harmful bacteria in the context of a child exploring the outdoors did not meet the threshold to mislead consumers. The Chair considered the advertisement promoted one option for an antibacterial soap. In addressing the Complainant’s concern about the dangers of Triclosan, the Chair said this matter was not within the Advertising Standards Authority’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Source: Advertising Standards Authority

Headline: Gold Coast 2018: Commonwealth Games Advertising Restrictions

The 2018 Commonwealth Games will take place on the Gold Coast, Australia from 4 – 15 April with 70 participating nations scheduled to compete.

In New Zealand, the Major Events Management Act (MEMA) provides permanent protection to the New Zealand Olympic and Commonwealth Games emblems and words. Section 28 of the Act sets out how breaching the Act can result in fines of up to $150,000.

The New Zealand Olympic Committee (NZOC) is mandated to protect the Commonwealth Games brands in NZ, ensuring all brand elements are used within guidelines, within New Zealand law and monitoring and acting on any ambush marketing. It is important that advertisers abide by the restrictions on who can use the Commonwealth emblems and words.

The Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) owns commercial and intellectual property rights associated with the Commonwealth Games. These include:
• All rights associated with the CGF logos, including the Commonwealth Games emblem, ‘The Bar;
• All rights associated with the Commonwealth Games flag, motto, anthem, the torch/flame, the Queens’ Baton, identifications, designations and emblems;
• The right to exploit and/or license all commercial rights associated with the Commonwealth Games (including sponsorship, media, broadcasting and merchandising rights).

The use of the Commonwealth Games Rights in New Zealand is reserved only for the IOC, CGF, NZOC and their commercial partners.  The NZOC has published Advertising, Promotion and Social Media Guidelines to explain the protections in place under the MEMA for Commonwealth Games words and emblems. These guidelines provide general information as well as clarity on how to avoid breaching the MEMA through the unauthorised use of the major events emblems and words, which would suggest an official association with the event that does not exist.

If you have any questions about advertising regarding the Commonwealth Games, please contact the NZOC.

Source: Advertising Standards Authority

Headline: Advertising Self-Regulation Summit a Success

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently held a Summit in Auckland focussing on the value of advertising self-regulation.

The ASA celebrates its 45th anniversary this year and took this opportunity to gather over 60 major advertisers, agencies and media organisations together to acknowledge the work of the ASA in supporting responsible advertising.

Hon. Clare Curran gave the opening address and spoke about the Government’s views on media regulation. Fiona Jolly, Chief Executive of Advertising Standards Australia, the sister organisation to the ASA spoke about the value of self-regulation.

Hon. Heather Roy, independent Chair of the ASA said “It was great to see such strong support for the ASA from the advertising industry and the Summit was a good opportunity to affirm the future of the organisation.”

The ASA sets standards in advertising through its Codes of Practice and funds a free consumer complaints process about advertising content and placement. It recently published a guidance note on ad identification and as part of its commitment to industry training, held a joint seminar with the Commerce Commission in mid-March to support consumer confidence in advertising.

Source: Advertising Standards Authority

Headline: Anzac Day Advertising Guidelines

Anzac Day is a New Zealand national holiday commemorated on April 25 each year. It is the anniversary of the landing of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps at Gallipoli in Turkey during World War I.

The Ministry of Culture and Heritage provides guidelines about the use of the word Anzac in advertising. The guidelines prohibit the use of the word Anzac in trade or business unless approval has been given by the minister for arts, culture and heritage and the governor-general. These guidelines say “The intention of the protection of the word ‘Anzac’ is to protect the term from commercialisation and to ensure that the use is not offensive to public sentiment.”

Guidelines from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage: Use of the word ‘Anzac’ or ‘ANZAC’

(Please visit the Ministry for Culture and Heritage’s website for the full guidelines)

Purpose of these Guidelines

Section 17 of the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 (the Act) prohibits the use of the word ‘Anzac’ in trade or business. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance to the public as to what uses will generally not be in breach of the prohibition in section 17. The Guidelines are not legal advice.

Protection of the word ‘Anzac’

The importance of ‘Anzac’ to New Zealand is enshrined in law with the use of the term ‘Anzac’ protected since 1916. Section 17 of the Act states that, ‘The Governor-General may… prohibit, regulate, or control the use in connection with any business, trade, or occupation of the word ‘Anzac’ or of any other word that so closely resembles the word ‘Anzac’ as to be likely to deceive or mislead any person.’

The countries that are party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property are required to refuse any application to register Anzac as a trademark and to prohibit its unauthorised use as a trademark.

‘Anzac’ or ‘ANZAC’

The term ‘ANZAC’ with all capitals should be used only when referring to the specific Corps. For all other uses ‘Anzac’ is preferred.

Requests to use the word ‘Anzac’

As the Ministry for Culture and Heritage administers the Act, the Ministry is able to provide guidance on whether a particular use is permitted under the Act, or in other words, whether the use will not in breach of section 17. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage will assess such uses on a case by case basis, and will consider factors including the following:

• the intent of the legislation to protect the word from connection with any trade or business ventures;
• whether there is a commemorative link between the proposed use and the Anzacs and the Gallipoli campaign or wider New Zealand involvement in military conflicts;
• the views of the ex-service community;
• whether the application is primarily for a charitable purpose[1]; and
• commemorative and educational benefits.

Organisations or individuals wishing to seek guidance as to whether their use is permitted under the Act should supply the Ministry with as much information as possible concerning the proposed use of the word, including pictures or samples of proposed products where appropriate.

Most applications to use the word ‘Anzac’ in trade or business require the authority of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage and the Governor-General. There are several types of applications where the Ministry has adopted a general policy position, these are:

• the use of the word ‘Anzac’ in relation to a biscuit provided that the product conforms to the general recipes and shape traditionally known as an ‘Anzac biscuit’. This does not apply to products such as cookies, slices, loaves or muesli bars.
• the use of the words ‘Anzac Day’ in connection with an event held on 25 April itself or on preceding or consecutive days including 25 April. For example, a business may hold an ‘Anzac Day Sale’. However it would be an offence to have an ‘Anzac Sale’.
• the use of the word ‘Anzac’, or a word resembling it, in the name of a street, road or park containing or near a WW1 or WW2 war memorial.
• the use of the word ‘Anzac’ is also generally not in breach of the Act where it is used in the name of a business located on a road, street or avenue that includes the word ‘Anzac’, provided that the full name of that road, street or avenue is included, for example Anzac Avenue Supermarket.

The types of uses described above must not be offensive to public sentiment.

Jewellery, ornaments or badges

Permission must be sought by the Attorney-General to manufacture and sell any ornament, badge or piece of jewellery with the word “Anzac” thereon. It cannot be used as trade name, trade mark, or registrable design.

Penalty for unauthorised use

Use of the word ‘Anzac’ in breach of the Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 is an offence if it does not have the approval of the Governor-General. Every person who commits an offence against the Act is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine of $5,000. In the case of a body corporate, $50,000 and where the offence is a continuing one, a further fine not exceeding $5,000 for every day during which the offence has continued.

Further Information

For further information about making applications for the use of the word ‘Anzac’, please contact the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

Source: Advertising Standards Authority

Headline: New Decisions: E-Cigarettes, Gender Stereotypes and More

The following decisions have been published:

• Complaint 17/433 The New Zealand Companion Animal Council Inc., Digital Marketing: Settled, advertisement amended/removed
• Complaint 17/444 Cyclo-Ssage, Print: Settled, advertisement amended/removed
• Complaint 18/039 Lovely Smiles, Digital Marketing: Settled, advertisement amended/removed
• Complaint 18/044 Cosmic, Out of Home: Not Upheld
• Complaint 18/053 State Insurance, Television: Not Upheld
• Complaint 18/057 National Mini Storage, Radio: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/060 Simillimum Homeopathy, Digital Marketing: Settled, advertisement amended/removed
• Complaint 18/063 Cowleys Hire Centre, Radio: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/064 George Weston Foods, Out of Home: No Ground to Proceed
• Complaint 18/065 20th Century Fox, Digital Marketing: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/066 Guardian Storage, Digital Marketing: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/067 Jackpot City, Television: No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 18/068 Spin Palace, Television: No Grounds to Proceed

E-Cigarette outdoor ad okay

The poster advertisement for Cosmic E-cigarettes, which was placed on the rear of a bus, showed a range of colourful bottles of vaping product. The wording of the advertisement said “Best Prices, Best Service – Cosmic January Sale Now On.”

The Complainant said the advertisement for E-cigarettes should not be shown on the rear of a bus because children could be exposed to the dangers of smoking.

The Advertiser said it was legal to advertise electronic cigarettes and they had abided by the relevant rules by not targeting children or making therapeutic claims.

The Complaints Board confirmed the Advertiser had the right to promote E-cigarettes within the constraints of an R18 age restriction for sales. The Complaints Board agreed the advertisement did not have particular appeal to children, nor did it show or glamorise smoking. It said the advertisement content and placement did not reach the threshold to cause serious or widespread offence and it had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility required by the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.

Stereotype Did Not Meet Offensive Threshold

The IAG television advertisement for State Roadside Rescue showed a teenage girl staring into the open bonnet of a car with makeup running down her face. The voiceover said “State’s Roadside Rescue covers your car for any driver – even your teenage daughter. That way one breakdown doesn’t have to lead to another.”

The Complainant said the advertisement portrayed female drivers in a sexist and degrading way. The Complainant said the advertisement portrayed an out-of-date stereotype of women being helpless and over-emotional and in need of men’s protection.

The Advertiser said the key message of the advertisement was that anyone who drives your car is covered by the roadside rescue cover rather than only one named driver. The Advertiser said it had tried to portray this serious moment in a light-hearted way “using a play on words to link a sudden mechanical incident with a sudden emotional reaction.”

The Complaints Board agreed the advertisement did nothing to dispel stereotypes about female drivers being less competent or being likely to react to mechanical problems in an emotional way. However, it said the advertisement did not reach the threshold to cause serious or widespread offence and said the advertisement had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility. Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.