Advertisment
A television advertisement for Supermac’s opened with a father and his son playing hurling in a field. The son said to the father “guess how much I love you?” and then motioned with his arms outstretched in a gesture that indicated that it was a lot. The father and son were later seen passing a branch of Supermac’s. The father stopped and said to the son “guess how much I love you?” and then indicates with a gesture of his head towards Supermac’s. A voiceover then said, “Treat the ones you love this Christmas”.
Complaint
Issue 1:
The complainants felt the advertisement implied one had to spend money to express familial love.
Issue 2:
The complainants took issue with the advertisement as they claimed it was irresponsibly promoting ‘fast food’ as a sign of affection and was denigrating healthy eating habits at a time when childhood obesity was on the rise.
Response
Issue 1:
The advertisers responded and said that the piece was created with great care to be in keeping with a sense of responsibility to the consumer and society at large. In their opinion the advertisement was in compliance with the ASA Code.
They believed that depictions of family were appropriate for a Christmas advertisement and in keeping with the theme of family that they said was integral to the Supermac’s brand. They said that the advertisement had featured a father and son outside a Supermac’s store and then sitting inside spending time together. They drew equivalence between the purchase of Christmas gifts and bringing a loved one to a restaurant as a treat and said that these actions were essentially no different given the season. The advertisers said that the piece was not designed to undermine parents nor exploit the vulnerability or credulity of children. They said that the advertisement did not contain any direct appeal to children and was not made to make any family or child feel inferior or unpopular if they did not purchase or had not purchased their products.
Issue 2:
The advertisers stated that the advertisement did not encourage or depict overconsumption and was not aired during children’s programming due to HFSS restrictions.
Conclusion
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1: Not Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the advertisement in light of the issues raised by the complainants; namely that a consumer had to spend money in order to express familial love. The Committee noted the advertisers’ argument that bringing a loved one to a restaurant for a meal as a treat equated to the buying of Christmas gifts.
The Committee considered that the portrayal of the visit to the restaurant, which appeared to be spontaneous, was precipitated by the interaction between the son and father in the opening of the advertisement as opposed to the visit being depicted as an action that was without context. The Committee felt that in this context the advertisement was not in breach of the Code on the grounds raised in the complaints. However, the Committee advised caution that in the absence of this context, the message portrayed could be interpreted as that raised in the complaints.
Issue 2: Not Upheld.
The Committee noted the concerns raised by the complainants and that the advertisement had not aired during children’s programme given that it was a HFSS product. The Committee noted that the advertisement had opened with the father and son playing hurling and that the trip to the restaurant was implied to have taken place after this period of activity. The trip was portrayed as a spontaneous decision of a treat and had not portrayed excessive consumption. Taking account of the above and the requirements of the Code, the Committee did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.
ACTION REQUIRED:
No further action required.
