Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2013 | 页面 45

Animals

Fantastical elements

Safe behaviour in interactions with animals
caused significant community concern in 2013.
Exaggerated fantastical imagery which was
unrealistic was considered acceptable by the Board
in certain cases where children would be unlikely
or unable to mimic behaviour. For example, a
boy feeding a monkey (Nestle – 0071/13), a man
hand-feeding a crocodile (Kellogg – 0066/13), a
crocodile biting a man’s arm (Mars – 0218/13)
and a man wrestling a shark (Unilever Australia
– 0164/13) were portrayed in a light hearted
manner and did not encourage or condone these
activities, and were cleared by the Board.

When considering advertisements under Section
2.6, the Board can dismiss health and safety
concerns if the imagery has elements of fantasy
and are obviously unlikely or fictitious. Cases
with fantastical elements dismissed by the Board
include people jumping from high places and
bouncing down a hill (Schweppes – 0077/13), a
man putting his hand into liquid gold (Ubank –
0170/13), a woman looking at a ramp that is set
up as if to jump over a railway line (Hungry Jacks
– 0365/13) and a man with a beard of clothes
pegs (Fosters Australia – 0024/13).

Cleanliness concerning animals was considered in
two advertisements where a dog licked a child’s
face (Bayer Australia – 0070/13) and where a
woman and her cats drank milk out of the same
carton (Murray Goulburn – 0352/13). In both
cases complaints were dismissed; although these
behaviours were not encouraged, the Board’s view
was that they were not a breach of community
standards of health and safety.

Section 2.6 of the Code encompasses a diverse
range of issues which raise community concern
over materials contrary to prevailing standards
of health and safety. Other Section 2.6 issues
considered and dismissed by the Board include
sun safety for kids ( Johnson & Johnson –
0119/ L