Download decision - New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority

10/643
DECISION
Meeting 8 December 2010
Complaint 10/643
Complainants: G Withers & A. Deal
Advertisement: CanTeen
Complaint: The television advertisement showed a teenage cancer patient dressed
in a hospital gown falling backwards in slow motion onto the floor. As she fell, the
bag of fluids from her intravenous drip, ruptured and spilled out onto the floor. At the
end of the advertisement, the Advertiser’s logo and the words “Show your support
and buy a bandana today” are displayed along with the organizations other major
sponsors and the Advertiser’s website address www.canteen.org.nz.
Complainants, G. Withers & A. Deal, said:
“Canteen advertised distastefully in our opinion. The actor was representing a
teenager who has cancer. The actor is falling as the commentary encourages the
viewer to help support teenage victims of cancer to "stand & fight" by buying a
bandana to support Canteen. We do not like the portrayal of the actor falling & the
drip rupturing on the floor in the hospital or that the actor looks like they are dying.
Cancer can be survived & young people need encouragement not fear mongering.
We really object to the prime time airing of the advert & the content.”
The Chairman ruled that the following provisions were relevant:
Code of Ethics
Basic Principle 4 - All advertisements should be prepared with a due sense
of social responsibility to consumers and to society.
Rule 6: Fear - Advertisements should not exploit the superstitious, nor
without justifiable reason, play on fear.
Rule 11: Advocacy Advertising - Expression of opinion in advocacy
advertising is an essential and desirable part of the functioning of a
democratic society. Therefore such opinions may be robust. However, opinion
2
10/643
should be clearly distinguishable from factual information. The identity of an
advertiser in matters of public interest or political issue should be clear.
The Advertiser, CanTeen, said:
“I write on behalf of CanTeen in respect of the above mentioned complaint. Thank
you for your letter dated November 4th which arrived here on November 9th. We
regret that our advert appears to have offended G. Withers and A. Deal and needless
to say, that was not our intention.
The approach we will take in response to this complaint is to address sequentially
each of the sections of the Code of Practice / Advertising code of ethics that you
have specifically referenced in your letter to us. You will however appreciate there is
an element of overlap in that parts of this reply apply to more than one rule. In
addition, we would like to provide some additional facts which are relevant given the
comments of the complainants.
That said, please let us know if you feel we have not fully met your information needs
to enable an appropriate assessment of the matter.
Basic principle four - sense of social responsibility
As an organisation we exist solely for the benefit of our community. For the past 22
years we have offered a range of support services to young people living with cancer;
that is patients, siblings, bereaved siblings and to some extent their wider families.
We are acutely aware of the trust placed in us by our members and by the donor
public.
Cancer is a real issue within the community and talking about it we feel ultimately
helps the community. In the first few weeks after this campaign we have had young
people approach us to join CanTeen, the fundraising appears to have been
successful in raising money to continue our services, and public awareness of
CanTeen and what we do has grown. We see all of this as being consistent with the
best interests of the community and certainly not at odds with them.
Rule six - fear
In seeking to be authentic about the reality of young cancer patients lives, we did not
aim to frighten the public but rather to inform and engage them in the challenge to
help young people in need. Our experience with our young members has been that
they don't want us to sugar coat things or be patronizing. They have shown us they
are capable of coping with enormous strain at times and gladly, of more often than
not, bouncing back.
While within their personal battle and their post trauma rallying, they expect to hear
the truth and hope that others are also okay with that. The advert we feel simply
reflected that spirit.
Rule eleven - advocacy advertising
In preparing for this ad campaign we listened to what our patient members told us of
their cancer experience. We were encouraged to tell it how it is for them. As the
material was being developed and again once in was close to completion, we ran it
by them and some family members. They confirmed that the sense of being alone
3
10/643
with the disease is common and despite the efforts of many, their needs for support
in particular psych-social support, is significant. It is this latter support which
CanTeen primarily provides them and which they continue to be grateful for.”
Additional comments on the complaint
“From their note it is clear the complainants assume that the young lady portrayed in
the scene they have objected to is an 'actor'. We feel it is important and fundamental
to completeness of understanding of our organisation that you know that A. is not an
actor. A. who volunteered for the role is a current and active patient member of
CanTeen. Her battle with cancer is indeed very genuine and present. We did not
need to resort to any element of fiction, indeed we deliberately chose not to, she is
being herself and she has in good part inspired the story we told through the ad.
The complainants imply that our direct depiction of cancer in young people implies a
message of death and dying and that we ought to be showing that cancer can be
survived. We get that and we practice it daily. Even a cursory investigation of
CanTeen and what we do will convince anyone that we are a 'glass half full'
organisation and that our CanTeen value to Live Life is fundamental to how
we support our members.
A review of our advertisements over the years will show that we seldom visit the
down side of cancer in our TVC's. We chose this year as part of balancing our
communication overtime, to show that cancer is indeed tough on young people and
they need the help of community to get through it. Our call to action was to help them
stand and fight.”
Details of our Ad agency.
“I sent you the details of our agency last week but in case it helps to have those
recorded within this response here they are again. Republik Communications,
Account Director for this project was C. Abbott who can be contacted at Republik, 40
- 42 Ireland St, Freemans Bay. Auckland, 09 376-0550.”
The Commercial Approvals Bureau (CAB) said on behalf of the media:
A sole complainant has viewed a CanTeen commercial unfavourably. By their
reckoning, showing a hospitalized teenager's struggle is distasteful and 'fear
mongering'.
The fact is that every year around 100 New Zealand adolescents are diagnosed with
cancer. Many survive the illness, many do not - but all of them struggle.
CanTeen is an organisation whose sole purpose is to improve the conditions,
treatment and lives of teenagers and adolescents struggling against cancer. More
than any other organization or individual, they know what cancer diagnosis and
treatment means for young people and their families.
Many people will live their lives completely unaware of cancer's devastating effects
on the young. The complainant may view this as privilege, but CAB contends that the
gravity of the topic demands widespread recognition.
4
10/643
To label this commercial as 'fear mongering' is reductive, specious and of no benefit
to those fighting a deadly and indiscriminate illness. CanTeen has opted to show the
very real effects of cancer so that the average New Zealander might understand, for
just 15 seconds, what is at stake for young cancer patients.
CanTeen has an inherent right to advocacy; but more poignantly, they have a selfelected responsibility to one of the most vulnerable groups in society. In CAB's view,
that responsibility allows for an even more robust expression of their viewpoints than
might normally apply. Suitably, we view that the complaint offers no grounds for an
upheld decision.
Deliberation
The Complaints Board carefully read all correspondence in relation to the complaint,
and viewed a copy of the television advertisement. It noted the issues raised by the
Complainants in relation to the advertisement, specifically that they found the
portrayal of an actor, falling on to the hospital floor and who looked like they were
dying, distasteful and stated that young people with cancer “need encouragement not
fear mongering.”
The Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the advertisement with
reference to Basic Principle 4 and Rules 6 and 11 of the Code of Ethics. This
required the Complaints Board to consider whether or not the advertisement was
made with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society, while Rule
6 does not allow advertisements to play on fear. The Complaints Board was also
required to consider the nature of advocacy advertising as established in Rule 11 of
the Code of Ethics.
The Complaints Board turned to Rule 11 and examined the elements of advocacy
advertising. Rule 11 provided that in advocacy advertisements expression of
opinions may be robust, provided that opinion was distinguishable from factual
information and that the identity of the advertiser was clear in the advertisement.
The Complaints Board noted the Advertiser’s logo and website address at the end of
the advertisement and was of the view that the identification criteria were satisfied.
Therefore, the Complaints Board concluded that there was no breach of Rule 11 of
the Code.
Turning to Rule 6 and Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics, the Complaints Board
noted the Advertiser’s response which acknowledged the concerns of the
Complainants that the “Stand and Fight” campaign should have focused on
encouraging young people in their fight against the disease, not make them fearful.
While the Advertiser concurred with the sentiments expressed by the Complainants,
they emphasised that it was not CanTeen’s aim to frighten young people with cancer
or the general public, but to produce a fundraising campaign that would engage the
public in order to raise money to improve the lives of young people with the disease.
While the Complainants interpreted the advertisement as promulgating a message
of fear, the Advertiser stated that feedback from their young members with cancer
indicated that they did not want the Advertiser to “sugar coat” the reality of their
condition during the campaign, neither did they wish to be patronised. Instead they
wanted the advertisement be authentic and reflect the reality of their lives as cancer
survivors. As evidence of this mandate, the Advertiser highlighted the fact that the
5
10/643
teenager in the advertisement was a member of CanTeen who has cancer and who
volunteered to take part in the advertisement, not an actor as assumed by the
Complainants.
The Complaints Board was of the view that the advertisement did not reach the
threshold to effect a breach of Rule 6 of the Code of Ethics. There were two reasons
that informed their decision. First, the Complaints Board noted that advocacy
advertising was entitled to be confrontational and was of the view that organisations
such as CanTeen, that acted for vulnerable groups, were entitled to be robust in
their expression in order to raise money for young people with cancer. Second,
while it regretted that some people may have found the advertisement distressing,
they agreed that the Advertiser had no intention to play on fear but rather sought to
raise awareness with a strong and arresting advertising campaign. Therefore, the
Complaints Board ruled the advertisement was not in breach of Rule 6 of the Code
of Ethics. Furthermore, the Complaints Board was unanimous in its view that the
advertisement had been prepared and shown with a due sense of social
responsibility, to consumers and society. Accordingly, it ruled that the advertisement
was not in breach of Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics.
Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled to not uphold the complaint.
Decision: Complaint Not Upheld