Advertisment
A television advertisement featured a man video calling his niece. The advertisement followed his journey from home to a sea swim. The beginning of the advertisement showed the man seated in the passenger seat of a car while someone else drove. While continuing his video call, the man extended his arm, furthering the phone from his face and closer to the centre console of the car. The man then pointed the camera of the phone towards the driver and said “There’s Gerry” to his niece on the other end of the video call. The ad then continued to show the rest of the man’s activities when going for a swim followed by the closing statement “Some connections you can always reply on. Vodafone – Together we can.”
Complaint
One complaint was received against the advertisement. The complainant objected to the ad on the basis they felt it did not take into consideration, the possible consequences of distracting a driver with a mobile phone while driving.
Response
The advertisers stated that when they received any complaints they took them seriously. Regarding the issue raised by the complainant, they stated that when the use of mobile phones while driving was concerned, they paid particular attention to ensure their safe use.
The advertisers stated that when the ad was produced, their agency consulted the National Safety Council for guidance relating to the scenes depicted. The advertisers advised that to ensure the ad would not encourage the misuse of mobile phones when driving, at no stage did the driver of the car hold or look at the mobile phone. They said that the only interaction the driver had with the phone was to shout “howya”, with his eyes not leaving the road during his exchange with the passenger’s niece.
The advertisers stated that the man only showed his friend was in the car by pointing the camera of the phone at the driver. They explained this was obvious by the fact that the passenger said, “There’s Gerry” (the driver) to the niece on the other end of the phone, as he turned the camera faced towards the driver. They stated that the passenger never attempted to distract the driver and did not show them the screen, nor did the driver look at the passenger or phone while driving. In addition to this, they advised that the advertisement depicted both the driver and passenger wearing seatbelts at all times.
The advertisers provided the longer 60 second version of the advertisement and stated it was worth sharing that neither version (the 30s ad referred to by the complainant or the 60s version) showed the use of a mobile phone in an unsafe manner within a car setting.
Conclusion
Complaint not upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Committee noted the precautionary measures taken by the advertisers at the time of production.
The Complaints Committee observed that while the passenger in the car was seen to introduce the driver to the person on the other end of their video call, they did not directly interact with the driver or actively attempt to distract them. They noted that when referred to by the passenger, the driver did not divert his gaze from the road or look at the phone at any point.
In light of this, the Complaints Committee did not consider that the advertisement was in breach of the Code on the grounds suggested by the complainant.
Action Required:
No further action required.
