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
Global marketing wikipedia , lookup
Green marketing wikipedia , lookup
Youth marketing wikipedia , lookup
Product planning wikipedia , lookup
Product placement wikipedia , lookup
Advertising management wikipedia , lookup
Advertising wikipedia , lookup
Targeted advertising wikipedia , lookup
Advertising campaign wikipedia , lookup
08/389 DECISION Meeting 9 September 2008 Complaint 08/389 Complainant: C. Turner Advertisement: 42 Below Ltd Complaint: The magazine advertisement for 42 Below Vodka is headed: “GENERALLY SPEAKING, I’VE FOUND BEES TO BE UNREASONABLE AND DOGMATIC”. The text in the advertisement is a conversational style essay written in the ‘first person’ by a marketer for the product. It commences as follows: “I live in a house that somehow happens somehow to be perfectly in the middle of a place where bees actually live and the place bees want to go to get the stuff bees want to get. What this means is that at any given moment of the day or night there will be at least twenty bees trying to get into my house and another twenty bees trying to get out. Going around the house to get to where they want to go is clearly not an option for them. And while part of me applauds their tireless efforts to wedge themselves through the smallest window cracks in their quest to die two days later on the bottom of my shower, another part of me can’t help but think that the intelligence of insects is totally over rated. …” The essay continues in the same tone and then refers to ‘applied tokenism’ and says: “They say Manuka honey is healthy so I drink 42BELOW Manuka Honey flavoured vodka”. Further on the essay says: “This implication of a health benefit is also a great angle for marketing because you’ll notice us marketers are much more concerned about ‘implied benefit’ rather then ‘actual benefit’ “. 2 08/389 Included in the advertisement is an image of a bottle of 42 Below “Honey” flavoured Vodka, with three bees lying around the base. Complainant, C. Turner, said: “Please note that this complaint, and any complaint that I may make in the future, is not made on behalf of GALA. I now write to complain about advertising for 42 Below Manuka Honey flavoured vodka which appeared in the Sunday Star*Times Magazine supplement on 13 July 2008. Part of the blurb says "They say Manuka honey is healthy so I drink 42 Below Manuka Honey vodka." Another part says "This implication of a health benefit is also a great angle for marketing because you'll notice us marketers are much more concerned about 'implied benefit' rather then (sic) 'actual benefit' ". I believe that the advertisement breaches Principle 2 of the liquor advertising code by implying that a beverage containing 42% alcohol by volume is "healthy". The Chairman ruled that the following provision was relevant: Code for Advertising Liquor Principle 2: Liquor advertisements shall observe a high standard of social responsibility. The Advertiser, 42 Below Ltd, said: “Thank you for your letter concerning our recent advertisement for 42BELOW Manuka Honey. We do acknowledge the right of the complainant to formally express their personal views on the promotion. However, we also strongly believe that the promotion is consistent with the Advertising Codes of Practice. We, and all contracted parties associated with us operate within a firm framework of social responsibility and have taken great care not to breach Principle 2 of the Code for Advertising Liquor by associating alcohol with any implied health benefits. As can be seen in the advertisement we have stated "...people in the medical field would doubt the medicinal value of Manuka Honey Flavoured Vodka..." which denotes that there is no actual medicinal properties associated with our product. This advertisement, written by our in house copy writer, was intended to be a humorous, tongue in cheek, light-hearted read on a Sunday morning. We are confident that the majority of consumers who read this took it in the spirit intended. 3 08/389 We therefore apologise for any offence caused by advertisement but cannot agree that our advertisement was in breach of the Advertising Codes of Practice.” The Media, Fairfax Media, said: “We received your letter advising of the complaint made by C. Turner of the 42 Below advertisement that appeared in Sunday Magazine on 13th July 2008. We do not believe that the advertisement is in breach of Principle 2 of the Code for Advertising Liquor. The ad talks about the health benefits of manuka honey and then goes on to state that it suspects people in the medical field would doubt the medicinal value of Manukau Honey Flavoured Vodka. The reference to the "implication of a health benefit" from a marketing perspective, we believe was intended to be humorous and not suggesting that there were health benefits associated with Manuka Honey Flavoured Vodka. We feel the tone of the advertisement to be humorous and fitting with the nature of the brand itself, which we anticipate would be the consumer outtake. Therefore we do not believe the advertisement is in breach of this code.” Deliberation The Complaints Board read the magazine advertisement which was the subject of the complaint and the relevant correspondence. It noted C. Turner’s view that the advertisement suggested the product, which contained 42% alcohol, was “healthy”, and thereby it did not meet the high level of social responsibility required by Principle 2 of the Code for Advertising Liquor. In making its determination, the Complaints Board took into account the product, medium, audience and context. It noted that the product was alcohol, and the medium was the Sunday Star*Times, and thereby it observed that the reader would be likely to be reasonably mature. In its view, the advertisement as a whole contained a highly recognisable level of “tongue in cheek” humour which was part of the 42 Below brand, and the reader would be likely to be familiar with this. In any event, the Complaints Board said a reader would not interpret the advertisement as making a serious claim that the product was “healthy” based on the fact that it contained manuka honey. Having made these observations, the Complaints Board said unanimously that the advertisement met the high standard of social responsibility required Principle 2 of the Code for Advertising Liquor and ruled that it was not in breach of that Principle. The Complaints Board ruled to not uphold the complaint. Decision: Complaint Not Upheld