In the last two weeks we have seen the ASA: (i) remind businesses of the risks associated with ‘shockvertising’, (ii) revisit its rules regarding objectifying ads, (iii) review cinema and radio ads and (iv) address the advertising risks of Black Friday.

Shock adverts miss the mark

What was complained about?  Two very different attempts at shock strategy advertising on social media raised concerns around undue distress this week. The first, an advert from Gymbox Official to 'Practice Safe Sets' included a hoax product recall for condoms it had previously given away to customers. The second, from 'get_0ut_0f_debt's TikTok account, portrayed a graphic response to debt related issues, including graphic references to suicide. The complainants challenged whether the ads were irresponsible and caused undue distress. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. The CAP Code states that communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason. The ASA considered the risk of unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and that the suggestion of suicide in the workplace were likely to cause significant distress to consumers and, given that the themes of  (i) gym memberships and (ii) financial management did not justify such extreme messaging, both ads were held to be a breach. 

What are the ramifications? These rulings serve as a clear reminder to advertisers that communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility and cannot use provocative or distressing content without justifiable reason. It is important to note that some ads (for example, those raising awareness for terminal illnesses or humanitarian issues) will require some upsetting images or messaging to be included; however, the ASA will not permit unwarranted 'shockvertising' from commercial entities merely to attract attention. 

We can't "bare" it, says the ASA 

What was complained about? An Instagram post by Jaded London was challenged for sexualising and objectifying women. The ad contained two images: the first was of a nude woman with her hands position on the front wheel of a motorbike and her feet on the back wheel, whereas the second image was of a woman in the same position, dressed in motorbike gear and a faux fur coat. In the second image, the woman’s coat was slightly raised to expose her buttocks.

What was the ruling? Upheld. Despite Jaded London’s insistence that the ad was intended to “celebrate the female form”, the ASA held that the ads were objectifying and likely to cause serious offence. In particular, the positioning of the women across the motorbike wheels made it seem as though the models were a part of the motorbike structure. Likewise, the covering of the women's faces with helmets, the nudity and the angle of the women's bodies - which the ASA described as "sexually suggestive" - further contributed to the objectification. 

What are the ramifications? The ASA has reminded advertisers of the need to ensure that their ads are socially responsible and do not cause serious offence. Whilst fashion brands often use risqué images, advertisers should be wary of the way they choose to promote women's clothing. For example in this case, although Jaded London was promoting a shoe brand, the focus of the images was the women's bodies, rather than the shoes. Advertisers should therefore not display nudity where it is not relevant to the product itself, as it risks presenting the bodies as mere objects in the advert.

Ad Verdicts: Betting Games and Vaping Claims 

What was complained about?  In the past two weeks the ASA ruled on two separate ads for (i) Prize Pinball, a gambling game, on radio, and (ii) vaping ads shown in the cinema, alleging that these were inappropriately scheduled and targeted.  The Prize Pinball ad aired on Radio X during “The Chris Moyles Show”, while the ad claiming that vaping was 95% less harmful than smoking featured before the movie "Deadpool & Wolverine", a 15-rated film. The complaints questioned whether the ads were inappropriately scheduled at a time when children could hear or see them, and whether the ads were therefore inappropriately targeted.

What was the ruling? Inappropriate targeting – Not Upheld In relation to the vaping cinema ad, the ASA reminded advertisers that no medium should have been used to advertise e-cigarettes if more than 25% of its audience was under 18 years of age. The ASA examined the audience demographics for the film, relying on research provided by the CAA on behalf of the advertiser which showed that only 3% of the audience were 15-17 year-olds. Therefore, the ad was not considered to be directed at children. Similarly, the gambling radio ad was broadcast at 8 am on a weekday, a time when children might be listening. However, RAJAR figures showed that only 6% of the audience at that time were under 18, and 88% were over 25. The ASA concluded that the scheduling advice was applied responsibly and did not breach the BCAP Code. 

Unsubstantiated claims re vaping – Upheld.However, the claim that e-cigarettes were 95% less harmful than smoking was deemed misleading. Although based on a Public Health England report, the ASA neither found nor was provided any evidence that the products were in fact 95% less harmful than smoking. The ad breached rules on misleadingness, substantiation, and health-related claims. 

What are the ramifications? These rulings show the importance of conducting market research in being able justify ads which the ASA may consider. In particular, the market research should clearly define which audience categories tune in to various channels at various times. Advertisements should be carefully targeted to avoid reaching unintended audiences, especially minors. In both instances the factual evidence from the market research (by the CAA for the cinema ad and RAJARA for the radio ad) and clearance provided by relevant bodies (like Radiocentre for the radio ad) proved to be sufficient evidence to prove to the ASA that the ads did not breach the Codes. 

Keep your finger on the Pulse(io), says ASA

What was complained about? An advert for a muscle compression product, Pulsio Compression, claimed consumers would be saving £300 in its Black Friday Sale. The advert showed a price of £599 crossed out and, next to it, the suggested new price of £299. However, the advert was challenged on the basis that the savings claims were misleading as the complainant believed the product had never been sold at the higher price. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA found that the reference price of £599 was misleading as Pulsio Ltd did not provide evidence that the product was usually sold at that price. The product’s price had fluctuated over the previous six months, with different reference and promotional prices. The ASA concluded that the savings claims were not substantiated and were misleading, for instance because the Black Friday sale price included only a 99 pence discount from the price in September 2024.

What are the ramifications? This ruling demonstrates the possible advertising implications of big “sale” events such as Black Friday. Where an ad claims to offer a saving, such saving must be genuine and substantiated with evidence. The ASA will likely view an ad as misleading where the sale price was available for longer than the usual selling price, or where the sale price is not shown as against the most recent price available.