Motoring

A video on the advertisers’ Facebook page featured a man driving a 2006 registered car reversing into a parking space resembling a workplace car park while two men looked on. As the driver exited his car and walked past the two men, who were wearing shirts and ties and giving the appearance of being co-workers, one of them nodded in the direction of the driver as if referring to him and the two men then joked with one another. In the next scene, wearing different clothing, the driver is then shown driving into another parking space beside a newer car than his, and when he walks past it, he is shown looking at the newer car. On screen text during this sequence states:

“Time for a new car?”

The driver is then shown entering the advertisers’ premises to purchase a newer car.

After purchasing the new car, the driver pulls into the workplace carpark where the two co-workers are. As the driver reverses into the car space the two men appear to nod their approval. The driver gets out of his car smiling and hands them the advertisers’ business card.

The complainant considered the advertisement to be offensive as they did not consider it was appropriate for anyone to laugh at another person’s car just because it was older or less valuable than a newer model.

While the advertisers’ indicated by telephone that they would be responding to the complaint, to date no response has been received.

Complaint Upheld.

The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint. The Complaints Committee noted that the advertisers had indicated that they would be responding to the complaint, but that no response had been received. They expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint and reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.

The Complaints Committee considered that the advertising suggested that it was acceptable to apparently undermine someone based on their possessions. In the absence of a response from Hertz Car Sales Blarney and as the advertisement has not been shown to have been prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society, the Committee concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of the Code.

Action Required:

The advertising must not reappear in its current form again.