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