Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2013 | Page 31

Issues attracting complaint
Discrimination or vilification
(Section 2.1, AANA Code
of Ethics)
Section 2.1 is a broad category which includes
discrimination or vilification on the basis of
age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, physical
characteristics, mental illness, disability,
occupation, religion, sexual preference or lifestyle
choice. It is important for advertisers to note that
depictions of any section of society may raise
concerns of discrimination, especially if groups
are presented in a stereotypical manner. Although
the use of humour and a light hearted nature in
advertisements has in certain cases lessened the
impact of the overall message, if the Board views
the advertisement as discriminatory against any
group it will breach Section 2.1.
The issue of discrimination and vilification
attracted just over 18 per cent of complaints
in 2013.

Discrimination against age
In 2013 the Board received complaints for a
billboard advertisement which featured an elderly
gentleman expressing surprise at a cider called
dirty granny (Fosters – 0046/13). Complaints for
this advertisement surrounded the implication
that a grandmother had done something dirty.
The Board considered that the gentleman’s
surprised look was ambiguous and did not directly
discriminate or vilify on the basis of age.
The driving ability of aged citizens was questioned
in a campaign broadcast on TV (IAG Insurance
– 0093/13) and billboard (IAG Insurance –
0081/13). The advertisements feature an elderly
woman driving a car with a younger man
expressing concern over her driving skills. The

Review of Operations 2013

Board considered that in each scene something
humorous is taking place, not just in the scene
with the elderly lady. Both advertisements were
considered by the Board to be light hearted and
humorous rather than discriminatory towards
aged citizens, and therefore dismissed complaints.
An advertisement featuring references to
a plastic hip and a hairy lip raised concern
of discrimination towards elderly people
(Volkswagen – 0401/13). The Board noted the
light hearted tone of the advertisement and
considered that the reference to common signs
of aging are made in the context of a celebration
of all members of a family. The Board considered
that the advertisement does not present any of the
older members of the family in a negative manner
and that overall the advertisement was not
discriminatory towards people based on their age.

Discrimination on the ground of disability
or mental illness
Although advertisers are generally careful to
avoid discriminating or vilifying on the basis of
disability, the Board considered five cases under
this topic in 2013 and found one to be in breach
of Section 2.1 on these grounds.
An advertisement for Hotels Combined
(0386/13) raised concerns of discrimination
against people with a disability. The advertisement
featured a man who had stayed up all night
researching hotel deals behaving erratically
with the final line you’d be crazy not to use Hotels
Combined. The Board determined the man’s
behaviour was clearly depicted as being due to
his lack of sleep and not directly linked to any
particular disability or mental illness. The Board
dismissed complaints as the advertisement did not
discriminate or vilify against any group.

A cinema advertisement for Westpac (0414/13)
attracted complaints of discrimination against
people with a disability. In the advertisement,
an unwanted house guest joins a couple in daily
activities and the couple show discomfort at the
man’s presence. The man is intended to represent
the couple’s home loan, and the Board considered
this representation was made clear throughout the
advertisement. Although the complainant claimed
the behaviour of the man suggests an intellectual
or learning disability, the Board determined that
most members of the community would agree that
the man is not presented as having a disability.
The Board considered that this advertisement did
not discriminate against or vilify any section of
society, and dismissed complaints.
Similarly, the Board dismissed complaints over a
car advertisement (Ford – 0141/13 & 0142/13)
which included people twirling a finger next to
their head and whistling. In this instance the
Board determined the gesture was being used
to mock the inventions and their likelihood
to succeed and not mocking mental illness.
The Board noted that the overall tone of the
advertisement is humorous and considered that
most members of the community would consider
that the advertisement is not presenting material
which discriminates against people who suffer
from mental illness.
A radio advertisement (Eskander Betstar –
0392/13) considered in 2013 featured a voiceover
using a normal pitch, a higher pitch for people
with hearing difficulties and finally a description
of hand signals used in sign language for those
who cannot hear. The Board considered that the
advertisement is attempting to be humorous but
that the humour could be seen to be in poor taste
as it is clear that a deaf person would not be able
to hear the advertisement. The Board determined
that the adverti