Download Complaint 06/474

ADVERTISING STANDARDS COMPLAINTS BOARD
PO Box 10-675 Wellington
Telephone (04) 472-7852
Facsimile (04) 471-1785
Email [email protected]
Website www.asa.co.nz
06/474
DECISION
Meeting 31 January 2007
Complaint 06/474
Complainants: N. Taiapa and Others
Advertisement: BurgerFuel
Complaint: The BurgerFuel flyer advertisement carried white chalk-like headings which
said:
“BURGER FUELS
WHITE CHRISTMAS
SUPER MASSIVE GIFT HAMPER”
Images included a large hamburger on a soft looking white substance, a bottle of Coca-Cola,
a rolled American dollar note, and the face of Pablo Escobar Gaviria above a line saying
“LIFE’S TOO SHORT TO” and Kate Moss above a line saying “EAT BAD BURGERS”.
The price was stated as “ONLY
$11.00”.
The offer below said:
Get into any BurgerFuel store and buy a ‘White Christmas Combo’,
fill your details on the back of the receipt and place it in the entry box to WIN…
1X return ticket to anywhere in South America* a white
Playstation PSP, Jagermeister, Moa Beer, Etnies shoes,
Electric sunglasses, 10 CDs from Real Groovy Records,
A year’s supply of BurgerFuel** and a big fruity Christmas Pud!
The ‘White Christmas Combo is – 330 grams of Coke, a char-grilled Chicken Burger with Brie and Cranberry Sauce plus
Spud Fries with Aioli Dip!! All for the festive price of $11.00 Competition closes 30.12.06.
Conditions at the bottom of the advertisement said:
“Coca-Cola”, “Coke” and Contour Bottle are registered trade marks of Coca-Cola Company. Prize will be drawn Friday 12 January 2007.
Winner will be contacted by phone or email. If you are under 18 Johnny Promo will drink the alcohol in comfort of his own home – bad
luck kids. *Air travel to the value of $2500. ** 1 Burger, Spud Fries with Aioli Dip and 1 Malt Shake every week for 52 Weeks.
The Complainant N. Taiapa said:
2
06/474
Where: Pamphlet placed in my home letterbox, between 26th Nov and 3 Dec 2006. Who:
Burgerfuel
Product: "White Christmas Super Massive Gift Hamper"
Complaint The pamphlet implies drug use - cocaine. It has traces of white powder stuff in the top left
hand corner. I see that some of the wording is in the form of white powder (cocaine) lines and
mounds. There's an American dollar bill rolled into a tube. The picture of the burger is placed
on top of a mound of 'white stuff' as large as the burger that I think is to look like cocaine.
And there's a picture of Kate Moss on it as well as a picture of some other guy unknown to
me. Here's a company that, I quote, "is a team of customer focused individuals, committed to
high social standards and environmental standards." How irresponsible of BURGERFUEL.
How unnecessary it is for my children to see blatant social approval of cocaine use. What's
cocaine got to do with, and I quote the BURGERFUEL guarantee, "We guarantee that your
BURGERFUEL BURGER is the healthiest burger you will ever eat, because life is too short
to eat bad burgers!"
As a father of young children, it was our six year old son who first saw the pamphlet; I think
it is over the top advertising.”
Two duplicate complainants expressed similar concerns about the advertisement. They
also identified the man shown in the advertisement as the late Pablo Escobar Gaviria who
allegedly had sinister connections with drug trading in Columbia. One said the advertiser
used “it's clearly differentiated image … to invite their customers, mostly young consumers
to use cocaine to be slick and cool.” The other expressed the view that the matter was
compounded by the fact that the advertisement used references to the drug trade “at
Christmas of all times”.
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 12: Safety - Advertisements should not, unless justifiable on educational or social
grounds, contain any visual presentation or any description of dangerous or illegal practices
or situations which encourage a disregard for safety.
Code for Advertising of Food
Principle 2: All food advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social
responsibility to consumers and to society. However advertisements containing nutrient,
nutrition, health or therapeutic claims, should observe a high standard of social responsibility.
Principle 3: Advertisements directed at children should observe a high standard of social
responsibility.
3
06/474
The Advertiser, Burger Fuel, said: “… The White Christmas promotion was in no way
meant to offend anyone. BurgerFuel certainly doesn't condone any kind of drug use. We do
like however to try to use creative that has a sense of humor and that reflects the irreverent
nature of the BurgerFuel brand. The artwork in question employs a play on words and any
perceived connection to illegal substances is only inferred. The various components
individually do not suggest any connection to anything untoward.
We do not employ an advertising agency, our management team is a small group of 5 people
and we develop almost all creative internally.
We have approximately 35,000 people coming through our stores each week and so far there
have only been two people who have disapproved of this promotion - most customers take it
for what it is - a bit of a laugh, a great competition and something a wee bit original.
The White Christmas promotion expires at the end of December and all marketing material
will be out of stores by this time.
We do however take all complaints seriously and would never try to offend any member of
the public. If it is considered by the board that the promotion was not in good taste we would
of course take these comments on into consideration when planning future promotions.
I would be happy to contact N. Taiapa directly and if you felt this was appropriate.
Let me know if there is anything else we can do to help or if there is any other information
you require.”
Deliberation
The Complaints Board perused the relevant correspondence and the advertisement. It noted
the complainants were of the view that the advertisement had been not been prepared and
published in a manner which was socially responsible, particularly as it was in the form of a
pamphlet which could be seen by children.
The Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the complaint with reference to
Basic Principle 4 and Rule 12 of the Code of Ethics, and also the Code for Advertising of
Food, Principles 2 and 3.
The task before the Complaints Board was to determine whether the advertisement, which
was for a burger meal, had been prepared and shown with the due sense of social
responsibility as required by Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics and Principle 2 of the
Code for Advertising of Food. The Complaints Board also had to determine whether in its
view the advertisement had been “directed at children”, defined in the Code for Advertising
to Children, as those below the age of 14, and if so whether it observed the high standards of
social responsibility required by Principle 3 of the Code for Advertising of Food. Turning to
Rule 12 of the Code of Ethics, the Complaints Board was required to determine whether the
4
06/474
advertisement contained “any visual presentation or any description of dangerous or illegal
practices or situations which encourage a disregard for safety”.
Turning to the advertisement, the Complaints Board noted that it took the form of a colourful
A5 sized leaflet which had been delivered to letter boxes in the pre-Christmas period. The
visual showed a char-grilled chicken burger, together with a bottle of soft drink, a bag of
“spud fries” and a container of aioli dip, with the price tag of “Only $11”. Furthermore, it
advertised a competition, entry to which required completion of one’s details on the back of a
receipt. The heading included a large reference to “White Christmas”.
Accordingly, the Complaints Board, was in no doubt that the advertisement would have
evident appeal to children, and could be said to have been “directed at children”, although not
exclusively, and in any event, the Complaints Board said it did not properly safeguard the
interests of children. Having established this, the Complaints Board said the advertisement
was therefore required to observe a high standard of social responsibility as required by
Principle 3 of the Code for Advertising of Food. The Complaints Board was unanimously of
the view after taking into account the product, presentation and medium, that the
advertisement which contained a range of well recognised references to an illegal substance,
did not meet this requirement and thereby ruled that it was in breach of Principle 3. The
Complaints Board also confirmed that the advertisement was in breach of Basic Principle 4 of
the Code of Ethics and Principle 2 of the Code for Advertising of Food, as it had not been
prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers, from children to adults, and
society, as required in these provisions.
Furthermore, the Complaints Board was in no doubt that the advertisement contained a visual
presentation which included many elements of an illegal practice which could encourage a
disregard for safety among consumers, thereby breaching Rule 12 of the Code of Ethics.
The Complaints Board noted the duration of publication of the advertisement and the
advertiser’s contention that the promotion had been intended to be humorous reflecting the
irreverent nature of the product brand. This it said, did not in any way save the advertisement
from breaching the Advertising Codes.
The Complaints Board ruled to uphold the complaint.
Decision: Complaint Upheld