Advertisment
An advertisement for Aperol appeared on YouTube that featured an Italian bar and various customers ordering an Aperol spritz.
Complaint
The complainant objected to alcohol advertising being served to their account as they were streaming various historical content from YouTube on their phone to their television during the afternoon for their children. The complainant advised that they were logged into their account as an over 18’s user. The complainant objected on the grounds that alcohol advertising was not permitted on broadcast media at that time, and by streaming it onto their television from YouTube, they considered the serving of an alcohol advertisement was circumventing the rules and was targeting them and their children.
Response
The advertisers said that they took their marketing responsibilities very seriously, as reflected by their internal Code on Commercial Communication which sat alongside any responsibilities under applicable law.
They said that it appeared that the complainant considered the placement of their YouTube advert as if it was a broadcast television advertisement because they chose to ‘screen share’ or ‘screen mirror’ from their mobile phone to their television while they had three minors in the room with them. They noted from the complaint that the content being streamed included “Horrible Histories” which could be considered as a children’s programme and two other pieces of content which appeared to have been created for an adult experience, being Top Tudor Historian rates Famous Movie Scenes” and “Tudor Expert Reacts to Henry VIII On Screen.”. They noted that the complainant was logged in to their Google account at the time that they were consuming this content on YouTube and served their advert. They said that this narrative demonstrated that they had been correctly identified as an adult account holder, who could legitimately be served an advert for an alcoholic beverage. They said that this was not a situation where an advertisement for an age restricted product was either (a) served to a user that was not logged in to their account and therefore could not be correctly identified as an adult; or (b) served to a minor that was logged in to their account. In this instance, they said that the advertisement was correctly served to an adult user logged into their account.
The advertisers said that the campaign was targeted exclusively at users aged 18+ and was configured to exclude children’s content. They said that the product was explicitly flagged as an alcoholic beverage, activating Google’s alcohol advertising policies. Under those policies, they said that delivery of the advertisement only occurred to users who were confirmed as 18+ and that it was blocked in restricted environments, including content that was classified as being only for children. They said that this was the industry standard method for ensuring that alcohol advertisements were only served to a verified adult audience on YouTube. They said that consistent with these controls, children’s content was excluded and their delivery diagnostics provided no indication that would contradict that configuration. They said that YouTube content classification combined creator self-designation with Google’s automated analysis and that advertisers and agencies did not control that process. They said that while some channels may be grouped under broader thematic labels (e.g. ‘history’, ‘pop history’), their 18+ targeting and alcohol policy flags remained in place throughout. In this case, they have assumed that Horrible Histories was classified by BBC as for ‘general audiences’ and not classified as made for kids, which was then approved by Google’s automated classification software. Therefore, they said that that as the complainant was logged in as an adult user, they were eligible to be served alcohol advertising while watching this content. They said that by contrast, a user logged into an account registered to a child, or any user whose age could not be verified, would not have been served their advertisement.
The advertisers said that the advertising served to the complainant when they were logged in to their Google account and watching YouTube was based on their profile and there had been no attempt to subvert or circumvent the rules that applied to advertising alcoholic beverages on broadcast media. They said that once an adult was logged in, neither the platform, the media agency nor the advertiser could prevent a child from seeing the adult’s screen. They said that this was comparable to an adult permitting a child to watch post watershed television or to attend a film with an 18 rating. They said that enabling YouTube’s restricted mode or using YouTube Kids would have been an effective way to prevent exposure to age-inappropriate advertising.
They considered that their experience showed that their advertising had been correctly targeted in accordance with the Code based on their profile as an adult logged in to their account, rather than the time of day or the content being consumed. They fully acknowledged the sensitivities involved when minors may be present during media consumption but said that an advertiser could not be responsible if someone logged into their Google account and chose to screen mirror their phone in front of their children any more than if they allowed their children to watch television after the 9pm watershed.
Finally, they noted that the complainant had not raised any concerns about the content of the advertisement, but only about its placement or targeting. In any event, they said that they were confident that their advertisement did not contain any content that could be considered irresponsible, harmful or in breach of the Code.
Conclusion
Complaint Not Upheld.
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Council noted that the complainant had been logged into their over 18’s account when streaming the content and that they had viewed both children’s and adult’s historical content. The Council also noted that the advertisement was targeted at users who were 18 and over and that it had been restricted from being placed during content that was classified as only for children, and that it was not served to users who were not logged into an account. As the complainant had been signed in to an over 18’s account and the content was restricted to over 18’s, the Council did not consider that the serving of the advertising was in breach of the Code.
Action Required:
No further action required.
