Multimedia Investments Ltd
Auto Added by WPeMatico
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:
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.”
(Please visit the Ministry for Culture and Heritage’s website for the full 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.
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.
The term ‘ANZAC’ with all capitals should be used only when referring to the specific Corps. For all other uses ‘Anzac’ is preferred.
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:
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 types of uses described above must not be offensive to public sentiment.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Source: Advertising Standards Authority
Headline: New Decisions: Alcohol Advertising, Warranty Claims and More
The following decisions have been published:
Warranty Claims Not Substantiated in Competitor Complaint
The ASA offers a competitor complaints process that gives fast and thorough consideration to competitor complaints for the benefit of consumers and to ensure a level playing field for industry. A competitor complaint from Mitsubishi Motors about two advertisements by Great Lake Motor Distributors Limited was recently considered by a Panel of public and industry Board members.
The television advertisement for the SsangYong G4 Rexton, appeared on the SsangYong Facebook page, the SsangYong website, the RextonG4 website and on mainstream television including SkySport 1. The advertisement included many features relating to the vehicle as well as using a badge which included five stars and said “FIVE YEAR, 150,000 kms FACTORY WARRANTY, PLUS ROADSIDE ASSIST. G4 Rexton. Class leading warranty.” The second advertisement was a post on the SsangYong Facebook page which said, in part: “The G4 Rexton – with a five year/150,000km factory-backed warranty – no other automotive brand in New Zealand offers such a new vehicle pledge…”.
The Complainant said the claims that SsangYong had a “class leading warranty” and “no other automotive brand in New Zealand offers such a new vehicle pledge” were misleading comparative claims and were unable to be substantiated.
The Advertiser said “the Rexton clearly has the class leading warranty as no other manufacturer has a five year / 150,000 fully transferrable factory warranty in this market segment… Our evidence for the class leading warranty is proven by sheer common-sense.” The Advertiser also amended some of its advertisements to reflect the warranty was fully transferrable and removed the Facebook post subject to complaint.
The Panel said the ‘class leading warranty’ claim was misleading as most consumers would interpret it to mean that the G4 Rexton warranty was generally superior overall to all other vehicle warranties in that class. As the Advertiser had not provided adequate substantiation to support this claim, the Panel said it was in breach of the Code of Ethics, and the Code for Comparative Advertising. The Panel ruled this part of the complaint was Upheld.
The Panel noted the Advertiser had removed the Facebook post subject to complaint and, noting the self-regulatory action of the Advertiser, ruled this part of the complaint was Settled.
Therapeutic Claim in Alcohol Advertising Not Saved By Humour
The BeerNZ advertisement appeared in the 2018 Great Kiwi Beer Festival event guide. The advertisement promoted the services of BEERNZ and was headlined “Beer is cheaper than therapy”. It included the BEERNZ logo, with the line “NZ’s Leading Craft Beer Distributor”. The word “Distributor” was crossed out in red and the word “Psychologists” written underneath. The Complainants said it was irresponsible and misleading to refer to beer as a substitute for appropriate psychological counselling and treatment in a guide for an alcohol-related event.
The Advertiser said it did not authorise, pay for or publish the advertisement in the 2018 guide. The advertisement had been published in the 2017 guide and the event organisers confirmed it had placed the advertisement in the 2018 guide without the knowledge of the Advertiser. The Advertiser said the advertisement used obvious hyperbole in a targeted publication to promote its role as a craft beer distributor and was unlikely to offend or mislead the audience.
The Complaints Board agreed the claim in the advertisement did imply a therapeutic benefit. It said that although the intended humour of the advertisement was likely to be obvious to consumers attending the beer festival, the restriction on making therapeutic claims about alcohol in the Code did not allow for the use of humour. The Complaints Board agreed that while matters relating to mental health and addiction were serious, in the context of an event guide for a beer festival, the advertisement did not reach the threshold to cause serious or widespread offence.
Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaints were Upheld, in part.
