Household

The advertisements were online videos and radio advertisements. They were part of a campaign titled ‘Phobia’. The online advertisement featured the character ‘Trevor’, depicted as being in therapy and unable to run their burglar bootcamp due to the impact of the PhoneWatch alarms.

The script included the following: –

Trevor: – It’s the phone watch alarms ruining me life. Can’t run me burglar boot camps anymore, or just burgle, full stop.

Therapist: -. What triggers you about phone watch?

Trevor: – It’s everything. The camera motion detectors. Watching your every move. The app giving them total control. [customer voice: The app gives me control]. The damn 15 second response time. [customer voice: 15 seconds.]

Therapist (writing ‘Call PhoneWatch’ in his notes): – 15 seconds you say? That’s very impressive.

The advertisement finishes with Trevor lunging at the Therapist at the mention of ’15 seconds’.

A voiceover says over an image of various products of the advertisers: –

VO: – Get the alarm burglars fear.

In the bottom left hand corner- under the advertisers’ products- it read

‘For more details visit:
www.phonewatch.ie/phobia’

In the bottom right hand corner it read:-

‘Don’t be alarmed.
Be PhoneWatched.’

Below this text was the PhoneWatch logo.

The radio advertisement script was as follows:-

Trevor: – What brought me into therapy? Phone watch alarms- they’re ruining my life. I used to be able to run a successful burglar boot camp. We produce some of the finest burglars in Ireland. But now, all my students are terrified of phone watch and so am I. With their damn 15 seconds response time, 24-7 monitoring, the app, camera motion detectors, wireless video doorbell- I might never be able to burgle again.

Voiceover: – Get the alarm, burglars fear for just 49 euro. Don’t be alarmed, be phone watched.…. Monitoring fees and terms apply.

Two complaints were received regarding the advertisements.

One of the complainants believed that the advertisement which they heard on the radio trivialised the crime of burglary and the trauma which may befall a homeowner. They speculated many homeowners may be in therapy themselves due to burglary. They believed that burglary should be seen as a crime against a person and not merely one against property. They said they could not imagine another crime having been trivialised in this way and that, in their opinion, the campaign was offensive.

The second complainant referred to the online video advertisement. This complainant had personal experience of a traumatic break in. They felt that the advertisement glamorized burglary and that this could have rekindled trauma in some viewers.

The advertisers said that they supported the ASA in their role in upholding responsible advertising in Ireland and that they were committed to ensuring that their advertising communications adhered to the relevant regulations. They said that they appreciated the opportunity to respond to the complaints.

The advertisers said that the advertisements formed part of the “Phobia” campaign, which had been developed to communicate the effectiveness of their monitored alarm systems, in particular their stated average response time of under 15 seconds, through the use of humorous, fictional and exaggerated scenarios.

They said that the campaign had been conceived as a continuation of their earlier “Burglar Bootcamp” campaign and was to build upon the tone established in that earlier campaign.

They said that across both campaigns, the same overall creative approach had been taken and they consistently centred on fictionalised and unrealistically ‘over the top’ characters rather than real-world depictions of criminal behaviour or victims. One of the reasons they took the approach of this fictionalised, unrealistic, and over the top tone centring on the ‘bumbling’ burglar, was to move away from a realistic portrayal of burglars and their victims which they believed could be triggering to victims of crime. They said that during development, significant care was taken to ensure that they never focused on or trivialised the victims of crime.

The advertisers said that they recognised the seriousness of burglary as a crime and the profound effect it could have on its victims. This was not something they took lightly; indeed, they pointed out, that their whole business was predicated on understanding the serious impact burglary can have and all their products and services were designed to minimise the risk of burglary and to reduce its effects through preventive measures.

The advertisers said that, to ensure clarity on the position of their campaign and to provide additional context, they created an explanatory page on their website which outlined the fictional nature and creative intent behind the campaign, and that a link to the webpage had been provided on the end frame of all ‘Phobia’ video assets published online.

The advertisers said that, taken as a whole, the advertisement had been intended to be understood as fictional, humorous and exaggerated in nature, and not as a realistic portrayal of burglary, criminals or victims.

Finally, they said that they believed the campaign had been executed in a manner that was responsible, proportionate and aligned with advertising best practice, while avoiding any trivialisation of real-life trauma.

Not Upheld:

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

The Council noted that the tone of the advertisements was intended to be humorous, depicting the effects on the burglar of the PhoneWatch systems.

The Council considered the requirements of the Code (S3.16), that humour and satire are natural and accepted features of the relationship between individuals and groups within society, that humorous and satirical treatment of people and groups of people are acceptable, provided that, taking into account generally prevailing societal standards, the portrayal is not likely to cause grave or widespread offence, or to cause hostility, contempt, abuse or ridicule.

The Council noted that the character ‘Trevor’ was depicted as suffering from ill effects due to their view of the effectiveness of the advertised products at deterring crime. The Council did not consider the depiction was one which invited sympathy for the character; rather they considered the depiction to be comedic in tone and unrealistic. In the circumstances, the Council did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.

Action Required: No further action required.