Food & Non-Alcohol Beverages

A billboard advertisement for Cadbury featured a photograph from the 1980’s of a mother holding a baby on her lap with the woman and baby holding a Cadbury’s easter egg.

Wording accompanying the photograph stated:
“Yours always. Cadbury”

The Healthy Weight for Children Group in the HSE objected to the billboard advertisement on the grounds that it depicted a very young child with a full-size Buttons Easter Egg. They said that the disparity in portion size between the product depicted and the age specific recommendations for consumption of that particular food category caused the advertisement to breach the ASA Code rules that marketing communications should not encourage or condone excess consumption; and should not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children.

The advertisers stated that the advertisement was part of a campaign whose core focus was to showcase old photos submitted by their customers featuring Cadbury products. They said that the campaign included a unique element where they invited consumers to share their old photos featuring their products, creating a sense of nostalgia and emotional connection with their brand. They said that the photos were intended to resonate with their target audience and evoke positive memories and sentiments and their aim was to engage with their loyal customers and create a sense of community by featuring their submitted photos in their campaign. They confirmed that this phase of the finished on 25thFebruary 2024 and that the advertisement in question would not be featured again.

They said that the photograph within the billboard advert was taken at Easter time in 1988 (36 years ago) and featured a baby sitting on their mother’s lap holding an Easter egg, therefore showing a time of special occasion (Easter) and did not depict any consumption. They said that the Easter egg in the photo was an older version of the Cadbury Dairy Milk Buttons Easter egg, which was not available for consumers to purchase and had not been available for many years. As such, they did not consider that the advertisement encouraged or condoned excessive consumption or encouraged an unhealthy lifestyle.

They said that they had received confirmation from their media buying agency that for Out of Home advertising, they had applied the site proximity condition of being 100 metres away from any school, pursuant to HFSS restrictions on advertising near schools. This meant that when a campaign was added to the agency’s internal booking system, it automatically assigns this HFSS restriction to the campaign, ensuring that sites chosen for their campaign advertising are 100 metres or more away from a school. In view of this, they could confirm that the advert was more than 100 metres from a school gate.

They said that the campaign was developed in accordance with the ASA Code and that they took compliance with advertising regulations seriously to ensure that their campaigns aligned with ethical and responsible advertising practices and their marketing communications do not encourage unhealthy consumption habits. They also regularly reviewed their marketing strategies and messaging to ensure they aligned with their commitment to responsible advertising, regularly assessed their audience data to ensure that their advertising was not targeted to under 18s and would continue to monitor and evaluate their marketing campaigns to uphold the highest standards of ethics and compliance. Finally, they said that they were dedicated to promoting moderation and balanced consumption of their products together with taking a healthy and transparent approach to marketing their products, especially to children.

Complaint Not Upheld.

The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.

The Committee noted that the advertisement had featured a photograph that was noticeably from the past, had featured a version of the product that was no longer available for purchase and that the intent behind the campaign was to create nostalgia. The Committee also noted that there was no invitation to purchase within the advertisement and that as it was a product categorised as a HFSS food, it had not been placed within 100m of a school and had not targeted children. In the circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the advertisement had encouraged excess consumption, poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children.

ACTION REQUIRED:
No further action required.