ARB orders MultiChoice to pull misleading DStv upsell advertisement

by Thinus Ferreira

MultiChoice has been ordered to stop a misleading advert in which the pay-TV operator claimed that DStv subscribers could pay R100 to upsize their packages - although DStv subscribers with contracts actually don't qualify and just month-to-month customers.

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) that a MultiChoice ad is likely to mislead DStv consumers, that MultiChoice breached a clause in the advertising code of conduct, and ordered MultiChoice to withdraw or amend the its advertising with immediate effect.

A DStv contract customer complained about MultiChoice's upsell advert, who responded to the advert and paid R100, "only to find out like myself that we do not qualify".

"The advert is not transparent enough to explain that those that are under contract or price-lock do not qualify for the promotion" the complainant told the ARB. "Not even once in the advert do they mention that people will be duped and make an immediate payment and not qualify".

MultiChoice denied that the advert was misleading and told the ARB that the "campaign is aimed at exposing lower package subscribers to higher packages by making an upgrade to higher packages, cheaper, for a limited period".

MultiChoice claimed that a consumer "who is in an ongoing relationship with the advertiser would be expected not to limit themselves to the wording of the advertisement but to examine further whether the terms of the ongoing relationship are applicable to the offer or whether the terms and conditions of the offer do include or exclude them".

According to MultiChoice "the subscriber who is on a fixed-term contract for the DStv Compact package pays a monthly subscription fee of R399 a month. The DStv Premium package on contract is R899 per month."

"The difference between applicable fees on these two packages is R500, yet the offer requires the consumer to pay only R100 to upgrade from R399 to R899 package instead of R500."

MultiChoice stated that "A reasonable consumer in the position of the complainant would be expected to consult both the terms and conditions for the offer, as well as terms and conditions for their current package to confirm whether they are eligible to participate".

"Furthermore, the contract packages are already discounted and therefore as a rule and practice they are excluded from the special offers that provide further discounts," MultiChoice said.

The ARB noted that MultiChoice's advertisement "does not make any distinction between the different types of the Access subscribers and the Directorate believes that it is not far-fetched for the complainant to have understood that the wording applies to their subscription as well."

"The Directorate also notes that the unlimited claim 'Add R100 extra to your Access subscription and upsize to Compact' does not clarify that it is only for month-to-month subscribers."

"It is a long-standing principle that one cannot, in the terms and conditions, correct a misleading impression already created in the advertising. In other words, if an advertisement states 'Available to all Access decoder customers' the T&Cs can't then say 'except all the ones on a fixed-term subscription."

SAB ordered to pull Brutal Fruit TV ad over showing and encouraging glass bottles and bringing and drinking alcohol on a beach

by Thinus Ferreira

South Africa's Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has ordered South African Breweries (SAB) to remove its "Be in the Moment" TV commercial for Brutal Fruit since it shows not just glass bottles which is prohibited on South African beaches but also depicts people bringing and drinking alcohol on a beach which are also illegal.

SAB aired its Brutal Fruit TV commercial on Warner Bros. Discovery's Discovery (DStv 121) channel on MultiChoice's DStv satellite pay-TV service.

The Brutal Fruit TV commercial was filmed by Giant Films with Emma Lundy and Cindy Gabriel as executive producers, with Joe Public as the agency.

According to the ARB, SAB's Brutal Fruit TV commercial depicts a glass bottle of Brutal Fruit on a colourful beach towel, as well as scenes and a setting in which a group of people are drinking Brutal Fruit

In response to a complaint from a DStv subscriber, SAB's Brutal Fruit told the ARB that the Brutal Fruit glass bottle depicted on the beach is closed and was only displayed "with the intention of showcasing the brand, and at no point did any of the people in the commercial consume the product on the beach".

Brutal Fruit said "it continues to encourage responsible disposal of bottles with appropriate guidance labelling to this effect appearing on packaging".

The ARB said it can't rule on the display of a Brutal Fruit glass bottle depicted on a beach, but said SAB and Brutal Fruit's argument "that the bottle is closed and alcohol is not begin consumed in the beach scenes is a little disingenuous".

"A hypothetical reasonable consumer watching the commercial as a whole and not pausing scene-by-scene as the directorate did, will view the commercial in its entirety, depicting friends enjoying Brutal Fruit together in various settings, and will not isolate the beach scenes, will not analyse each frame and conclude that alcohol is not consumed on the beach."

According to the ARB, it is "a stretch for the advertiser to assert that because the bottles are closed it is used to highlight the brand and does not encourage drinking on a beach".

The ARB in its ruling noted that Clause 3.3 of Section II states that advertisements must not contain anything which might lend support to criminal or illegal activities, nor should they appear to condone such activities.

"There is no doubt in the mind of the directorate that watched as a whole, the commercial condones and in fact encourages bringing alcohol to the beach and consuming it on the beach. This is illegal".

The ARB directorate found that SAB's Brutal Fruit TV commercial contravened Clause 3.3 of Section II of the Code and ordered SAB to remove the Brutal Fruit ad in its current format from wherever it appears.

Showmax can keep bloody billboard after complaints over offensive image which is 'for promotional purposes only'.

by Thinus Ferreira

South Africa's Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has decided that MultiChoice's streaming service Showmax can keep its bloody billboard that Showmax used to try and promote some of its true-crime content although passers-by found it disturbing and offensive.

The ARB received two complaints from members of the public about Showmax's billboard appearing on highways in East London and Johannesburg.

The public were put off and disturbed by Showmax's ghastly advertising, with the first complainant asking "How on earth is it legal to put this gruesome image up for everyone (yes even children 0-15) to see?"

The second complainant said "I did not give consent to see this image that I find gory, offensive and disturbing. Neither did my children who are minors. The show has a 16V age limit on it, so why is this disturbing image allowed for everyone to see?"

Showmax told the ARB that the bloody Rosemary's Hitlist image with blood-filled hands and arms "are intended for promotional purposes only".

Showmax said that "It is obvious that an image containing blood will offend some people. For the same reason, an advertisement with any sexual connotations (regardless of how minor or how inadvertent it may be) will offend some people".

"It is equally obvious that the standard for adjudicating whether any particular advertisement contravenes the Code cannot reasonably be (and is, in fact, not) that advertisement is offensive to someone or anyone. By their very nature, advertisements (and indeed artistic material in general) will be offensive to some people".

Showmax said that "The display of blood (and indeed the impugned image as a whole) is not gratuitous or graphic in any way. The display of blood is clearly relevant in the context of the product (namely a documentary about murder) which it seeks to promote".

"Therefore, the display of blood, in the context of a promotional advertisement of a documentary about murder, would not be offensive to the average, reasonable person in a manner that the Code seeks to prevent."

"The impugned image in and of itself is not offensive. No graphic details of a murder are depicted. Indeed, no violence whatsoever is depicted. The image merely hints at the subject matter of the documentary without itself depicting any acts of violence."

Showmax didn't comment on the public saying that they don't want to see this.

The ARB noted that "the image is certainly not a pleasant one, and is in some ways unsettling". The ARB found that the "image is not universally offensive and is not in contravention of Clause 1 of Section II of the Code".

"The directorate is aware that the image is not a particularly pleasant one to look at, and that children might have questions about why the woman has blood on her hands."

"However, in the absence of actual violence being depicted, and because the blood itself is not a realistic representation of violence, it is possible to answer those questions without going into any detail about the story behind the series. As stated above, a young child will not make the leap from the blood to imagining the violence implied by the context."

"The directorate therefore finds that the image is not morally harmful to children and is not in contravention of Clause 14.1.1.1 of Section II of the Code."

Alien chicken TV commercial from Chicken Licken doesn't cause harm to children Advertising Regulatory Board rules, says advertisers can't be prevented from 'creating light-hearted commercials'.

by Thinus Ferreira

Following complaints from parents that Zezorg is scaring their children, South Africa's Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has ruled that Chicken Licken's alien advertising on television isn't harmful to children and that advertisers can't be banned "from creating light-hearted commercials for fear that some children might misinterpret the message".

The ARB received complaints from the public over Chicken Licken's "Hotwings Party" meal from Joe Public, in which a family meets up with an alien known as Zezorg who looks like Stitch from Disney's Lilo & Stitch animation film, who teleports the family members out of their home so he can feed on the chicken in a first commercial.

In a follow-up commercial the family finds themselves on a deserted road with Zezorg who appears, grunts "sorry", after which everyone is teleported home.

One complainant objected to the "horrific animal" in the Chicken Licken' TV commercial that was shown across various TV channels like SABC1, SABC2 and e.tv, noting that it scares the entire family, and in particular their little girl, who has started having nightmares as a result of seeing these commercials.

Another complainant referred to the "scary, sensitive and rather disturbing creature which doesn't even exist on this planet".

She noted that the Chicken Licken' TV commercials pop up without warning, triggering her anger and leaving her disturbed for hours, while causing her son to have nightmares.

Joe Public told the ARB that the TV adverts centre around "a fictional alien-like character, taken in by a family as somewhat of a pet or new addition to the family after his unannounced arrival into the family’s home in the middle of the night. Though nervously curious at first, the alien’s arrival is met with smiles and laughter by the family, and he soon becomes part of their daily lives".

Zezorg is "overcome by his cravings and teleports the entire family away so that he can enjoy the meal alone. He does, however, end up apologising and teleporting the family back home."

Joe Public said that the Chicken Licken' adverts contain "no inappropriate scenes, and it is clear that the human family was never in any real danger even during the creature’s momentary lapse in judgement, which was caused by his overwhelming urge to enjoy the meal".

"The commercial contains no violence or dangerous situations, and no distasteful images are used. While young children would, admittedly, have a higher level of credulity, there is nothing in the commercial that would likely cause children emotional harm, and parents would be able to explain the premise and overall message with ease."

The ARB in its ruling noted that "that there is a possibility that the complainants may have only seen the first commercial (which does not feature the family reunion), and possibly changed the channel or switched off the television once they felt afraid or triggered".

"As such, there is a possibility that one or both complainants are oblivious of the conclusion of this story. Both complainants took issue with the fact that the commercials scare their children, and that the alien creature is perceived as disturbing and scary by them as adults."

"The Directorate is not convinced that adults are likely to perceive the alien character as threatening, offensive or harmful. Even if one were unaware of the reunion portion of this story, the plotline and execution of the first commercial is of such a nature that reasonable viewers are likely to understand the sequence of events."

"The creature arrives unexpectedly, and the family is clearly unsure of its origins and purpose. However, after first contact is established, it is accepted as part of the family."

"From this, it is obvious that the creature is an alien of some sort (who coincidentally looks like Stitch from the popular Walt Disney movie Lilo & Stitch) that has found his new home with this family. Objectively viewed, the alien is cute rather than frightening, and clearly friendly."

The ARB ruled said that "The allegation here is that the commercials would likely scare young children and in so doing cause emotional harm. Both complainants submit that their young children developed nightmares after seeing this alien creature".

"Again, the Directorate acknowledges the possibility that children might not have been exposed to the second and third commercial, and may possibly not be aware that the alien apologises for his actions and is forgiven by the family which arguably mitigates any concerns that young children may have."

The ARB said that "the question remains whether this creature and his behaviour is, in the opinion of the Directorate, likely to cause harm to children in a manner that the Code seeks to prevent."

"During the first commercial, the mood shifts from initial trepidation to harmony. The family is shown laughing at his antics and being pleasantly surprised by his supernatural abilities."

"It is true that some children have particular sensitivities to different things, which may not bother another child. These fears are wide-ranging. However, to prohibit advertisers from creating light-hearted commercials for fear that some children might misinterpret the message would be unreasonable."

"The alien creature is not depicted as an intimidating, scary monster, but rather as a kind-hearted creature. He has round teeth (as opposed to sharp fangs) and shows no claws or other features that would reasonably be expected to scare young children."

"He is constantly making strange sounds and even helps the son brush his teeth and records a dancing video with the daughter. These are not menacing or frightening actions that could potentially scare children."

"While true that he loses composure and teleports the family away so that he can eat all the chicken, this would, at worst, position him as somewhat of a villain who stole the family’s meal. The scene, especially if viewed with the “apology” scene, is not unreasonably frightening for a child."

"The Directorate is therefore not convinced that the commercials would likely cause children harm," the ARB ruled.