Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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