advert restrictions

1. Advert restrictions
What is it that the advertising standards authority (ASA) and
Ofcom do?
Ofcom- their dutiesare to ensure
 The UK has a appropriateelectronic communicationsservices (e.g.
Broadband)
 A widerange of high-quality television and radio programsare
provided.
 Television and radio services are provided by a rangeof different
organization’s
 Peoplewho watch television and listen to the radio are protected
from harmfulor offensivematerial
 Peopleare protected from being treated unfairly in television and
radio programs, and from having their privacy invaded.
 Viewers of video on demand servicesare protected from harmful
content.
ASA-
They cover mostformsof advertshowever not all of them.
The typesof advertsthey cover are;
 Magazineand newspaper advertisements
 Radio and TV commercials
 Television ShoppingChannels
 Advertisementson the Internet, including:
 Banner and display ads
 Paid-for (sponsored)search
 Marketingon companies’own websites
 Commerciale-mail and SMS text message ads
 Posters on legitimate poster sites
 Leaflets and brochures
 Cinemacommercials
 Advertisingwithin smartphoneand tablet apps
 Direct mail
 Sales promotions, suchas special offers, prizedrawsand
competitions wherever they appear.

2. Complaints
Both regulators dealwith complaintssimilarly, as they take
complaintsfrom a user completinga complaintform. This is because
the regulators have to find outabout the complaintand decide
whether to pursue it. When they decideto pursuea case they find out
the issue and act appropriately either banningthe advertof finingthe
company who released it.
Codesfor TV advertising
 ‘Televisionadvertising’meansany form of announcement
broadcast whether in return for paymentor for similar
consideration or broadcast
 ‘Broadcasting day’ is deemed to start at 06:00 and run for the
following24 hours.
 ‘Parliamentary proceedings’includesproceedingson the
floor of either Houseor Parliamentary Committees.
 ‘Public service channels’are Channel 3 services, Channel4,
Channel5 and S4C.
 ‘Formal Royal ceremony’ means a formalceremony or
occasion.
 ‘Films’ meansfilms madefor television.
 ‘Teleshopping’ meansdirect offersbroadcast to the public
with a view to the supply of goodsor services
Case study 1
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2016/9/Volkswagen-
Group-UK-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_343660.aspx
A TV ad for Audi, promoted the R8 model. The ad began by showing a
close-up, slow motion shot of a vehicle drifting and spinninginsidea
film studio. The ad then cut to a birds-eyeview of the vehicle, which
was spinningwith smokecoming off the tires. The circular tyre track
then gradually formed the Audilogo with on-screen text that stated,
"Speed isn'teverything". This issue with this advertwasthat it
promoted dangerousdriving.
Four complainantschallenged whether the ad condoned
irresponsibleand dangerousdriving. After these complaintswere
madethe ASA decided to look into the advertand find outif there
was an issue with it. VW challenged the case by stating that the
advertsays “speed isn’t everything” and they weresimply usingthis

3. technique of advertto portray the focuson the design and
engineeringof the model. They also said the advertwas filmed in a
closed set location therefore I did not representthe way customers
would actually drivethe car on public roads, also they used a highly
skilled precision driver wasused within the controlled maneuvers
doingspeedsof no more than 30 mph. they added that the set floor
was used to minimizetire smoke and the smokein the advertwas
dust, also they said that there was no wheel screech or aggressive
engine soundswhichwould be associated with dangerousdriving.
Finally VW stated that the advert wasshown with the atmosphereof
reflection and calm.
When reflected on the ASA decided not to uphold the complaint, this
was because they agreed with the manufacturesof the R8 and
decided they advertwas madeto show the engineeringand design of
the R8 and dueto the calm atmosphere of the advertand the fact the
maneuver wascarried out in a controlled area under supervision that
overall it did not condonedangerousdriving., and thereforeno action
was taken.
Overall I agree with the decision to notban the advertas it only
briefly showed ‘dangerousdriving’however the overall advertdidn’t
set the tone of dangerousdrivingasit was calm and mainly showed
off the design of the car which is a technique to entice viewersto buy
the car.
Case study 2
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2016/12/Oxford-
Business-College/SHP_ADJ_351116.aspx
A TV advertfor Oxford BusinessCollege shown on ITV 3, promoted
their businessesdegree offer in just 2 years. The Advertshowed
studentscompleting their business degree. Also the advertsaid that
studentswould only need 1 A-level, however in the small printit said
that studentswould havea successfulpre-admissionsinterview.
Overall the main complaintissued was that the advertwas
misleading.
There were several complaintsagainst the advertsaying that it was
misleading, therefore the ASA decided to look into the problem.
However Oxford BusinessCollegeprovided proof that some students

4. had in-fact completed the degree in 2 years. They also provided
documentation provingthat studentshad completed a BTEC in one
year and provided signed testimonials confirmingthe studentshad
completed their bachelor’s degree in 2 years.
There was only one complaintagainst the advert, however this was
only because peoplethought that the subject to individualcriteria
was misleading.
The advertwasupheld, this was because the ASA understood that
Oxford BusinessCollege wasofferinga fast-track BTEC higher
National Diplomain BusinessManagement. Which could be
completed in oneyear at Oxford BusinessCollege, followed by a
further year of study at a separate university to gain a ‘top-up’
degree. The ASA acknowledged that it was theoretically possible for
studentsto complete a Bachelor’s degreein businessin two years.
However because the advertdid not specify the fulldetails of the
courseincludingthat the second year is independentstudy ata
differentuniversity they agreed that the advertwas misleading.
I agree with the decision for the advertnot to be shown again
because is doesn’tspecify the fulldetails of the offer meaningit is
potentially misleading. This may unfairly attract morepeople to the
offer which may leave them disappointed.