Advertising Standards Bureau - Review of Operations 2013 | Page 66

Case Initial board determination Independent reviewer recommendation Board determination on review (if appropriate) Time taken to complete review Precis of IR process in cases reviewed Ford EcoBoost Case number - 0141/13 Complaints Dismissed May 2013 Independent Reviewer recommended Board review its initial determination June 2013 Dismissed 43 business days The submission for an Independent Review of this case asserted that the Board relied on an incorrect interpretation of part of the advertisement. The Independent Reviewer noted that the Board provided insufficient information regarding its interpretation of the advertisement and its reasoning for decision. On review, the Board comprehensively considered the issues raised by the advertisement and the complainant and confirmed the decision to dismiss the case. Nissan Fake pregnancy Case number - 0195/13 Complaints Upheld June 2013 Independent Reviewer recommended initial Board determination be confirmed June 2013 9 business days The Board found this case in breach of the FCAI Code regarding the depiction of unsafe driving. The Independent Reviewer analysed the Board’s decision and the request for review from the advertiser, and recommended the Board’s original decision be confirmed. In the Independent Reviewer’s reasoning, considering whether an advertisement has been in breach of an advertising code should be the impact on the viewers, not the actual circumstances in which the advertisement was made. Mondolez Oreo wonder filled Case number - 0247/13 Complaints Dismissed July 2013 Independent Reviewer recommended Board review its initial determination September 2013 36 business days The complainant requested independent review of this case on the basis that the decision did not have regard to the provisions of the applicable initiative and was clearly against the weight of evidence. In the view of the Independent Reviewer, the Board did not provide sufficient reasoning to distinguish this case from opposing Board precedent decisions regarding similar provisions. In reconsidering this case, the Board carefully reviewed previous decisions under the applicable initiative, and the overall impact of the advertisement, particularly to children. The Board decided that it breached the provisions of the initiative and thus changed its original decision and upheld complaints. Goodman Fielder Meadowlea Buttery “better for you” Case number - 0321/13 Complaints Dismissed Independent Reviewer recommended initial Board determination be confirmed September 2013 17 business days A complainant requesting independent review stated that the research the Board used to come to its decision was flawed and incomplete. In response, the Independent Reviewer reasoned that there is no obligation on the Board to conduct independent research in relation to a complaint made to it. The onus is on the complainant to make out its case. The Independent Reviewer noted the clearly differing and strongly held views in the scientific community about the issue raised. Since the Board relied in its determination on appropriate, current Australian Guidelines, the Independent Reviewer believed that the decision was not flawed and the original decision was confirmed. General Mills Old El Paso Mexican Rice Case number - 0311/13 Complaints Dismissed September 2013 26 business days An original complainant sought review on the basis that there was a substantial flaw in the process by which the determination was made. In the Independent Reviewer‘s opinion, the determination needed to outline the Board’s reasoning more comprehensively. On review, the Board provided a comprehensive outline of its decision making process and confirmed its original decision to dismiss the complaint. 64 September 2013 Independent Reviewer recommended Board review its initial determination October 2013 Upheld Dismissed Advertising Standards Bureau