Confectionary

The television advertisement featured two men in a boat angling. They were dubbed with children’s voices whilst discussing Haribo sweets.

Issue 1:
Three complaints were received against the advertisement. All three complained that the men in the advertisement were not wearing personal floatation devices (PFDs). One of the complaints was from Water Safety Ireland who stated that the wearing of PFDs was a statutory requirement for any passenger on a craft less than 7 metres in length. They said that an average of 118 people lose their lives by drowning in Ireland each year and that anglers not wearing PFDs contributed to this number.

Issue 2:
The three complainants said they believed it was irresponsible to omit the wearing of PFDs in an advertisement they considered was primarily aimed at children.

The advertiser said that they believed they adhered to the Code of Standards for Advertising and Marketing Communications in Ireland. However, having considered the complaints, they had issued instruction for the advertisement to no longer be broadcast on Irish media.

The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. They noted that the advertiser had, considering the complaints received, ceased the broadcast of the advertisement in question.

Issue 1: Upheld
The Committee considered the absence of PFDs in the advertisement. They noted that the boat was under 7 meters in length and the establishing shot had shown that the boat was in open water. In the context, they found that it would have been appropriate to have depicted the characters in the advertisement wearing PFDs. The Committee noted the Code requirements that a marketing communication should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society (3.3) and that a marketing communication should not encourage or condone dangerous behaviour or unsafe practices (3.24(a)). As there were no PFDs worn by the characters in the advertisement and that this omission condoned an unsafe practice, the Committee concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code sections 3.3 and 3.24(a).


Issue 2: Upheld
The Complaints Committee considered the complaint that the advertisement was irresponsible in showing the omission of wearing of PFDs in an advertisement considered to be primarily aimed at children. The Code requires that given that children may imitate what they see in marketing communications, they should not be encouraged, whether directly or indirectly, to copy any practice that might be unsafe (7.4(h)). The Committee considered given the nature of the product advertised (confectionary) it was likely to have appealed to children and as such, the advertisement should have depicted the characters wearing PFDs. Having omitted to do so, it depicted an unsafe practice that could have been imitated by children. The Committee concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code sections 3.3, 3.24(a), and 7.4(h) of the Code.

ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form and any future version of the advertisement must depict the characters wearing PFDs.