Download 14/577 COMPLAINT NUMBER 14/577 COMPLAINANT A. Radford

COMPLAINT NUMBER
14/577
COMPLAINANT
A. Radford
ADVERTISER
Brand Developers Limited
ADVERTISEMENT
Fish Harvester Television
DATE OF MEETING
6 January 2015
OUTCOME
No Grounds to Proceed
Complaint: The television advertisement for the Conrad Meier Fish Harvester promoted
the product. The advertisement stated in part:
“Can you see yourself catching more fish? Bigger fish? Catching lots of fish? See
yourself with a Conrad Meier Fish Harvester. Spending quality time with family and
friends catching fish … All you need to do is take a photograph to remember
because the family that fishes together, stays together.”
Photographs accompanied the voiceover that showed a family with large catches of fish.
Complainant, A. Radford, said: “Coming from a fishing family, I can't go with my husband
and daughter due to intense sea sickness and feel that from this ads comments, they are
suggesting my relationship will fail based on the fact I don't go fishing.
My parents relationship failed but they went fishing together. Perhaps this is not the best
phrase to use when it comes to selling products.”
The relevant provisions were Basic Principle 4 and Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.
The Chairman noted the Complainant’s opinion about the advertisement. However, she
said the Complainant had taken an extreme and literal interpretation of the advertisement.
She said the Complainant’s personal experience did not mean the advertisement was
misleading and she was of the view that most people would find the statement aspirational
not prescriptive.
While she acknowledged the issues the Complainant had with the advertisement, the
Chairman said the advertisement did not contain anything which was likely to deceive or
mislead consumers and, as such, had been prepared with a due sense of social
responsibility to consumers and to society. Therefore, the Chairman ruled there was no
apparent breach of Basic Principle 4 or Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.
14/577
Accordingly, the Chairman ruled that there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.
Chairman’s Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed
2