Advertising Standards Bureau

A case will not be raised if a complaint raises an issue under the Code of Ethics and the issue is one that the Board has consistently considered not in breach of the Codes.

Examples include:

• The concern raised about the advertisement involves an interpretation of or concern about the advertisement that, while open to interpretation, is unlikely to be seen by reasonable members of the community or is a matter that is particular to the complainant and, although offensive to the complainant, is not likely to be anything which in the light of generally prevailing community standards was likely to cause serious or widespread offence taking into account the context, medium, audience and product.

Eg: Drumstick case where boy bites bottom of cone 76/09; Big M flavoured milk case, where empty containers were compared to sexual positions 493/09

• The concern raised about the advertisement involves a depiction of behaviour, an activity or treatment of people or animals or objects that reasonable members of the community would be unlikely to be similarly concerned about.

For example: A complaint that an animal is depicted in a manner that is cruel, when the animal is depicted in the advertisement in a manner that is considered acceptable in Australian society eg: a bird depicted in a cage, a dog depicted in a kennel or on a leash.

• The concern raised about the advertisement involves an issue that the Board has consistently considered to be not in breach of the Code.
• A complaint that the advertisement contains offensive language, where the language complained about is a phrase or word that the Board has consistently deemed to be not in breach of the Code eg: Australian Colloquialisms (bloody, bugger etc) used in a manner that is consistent with generally accepted usage and not used in an aggressive, threatening or demeaning manner.

For example: (27/09 MLA Sam Kekavitch; 303/09 Sidchrome tools; 542/09 Lynx)

For example: A reference to ‘Poms’ or ‘pommies’ generally (499/06; 12/09; 25/10  - contrast upheld decision where the reference is demeaning 509/06)

• A complaint that the advertisement contains expletives or has content which, when the advertisement is viewed, makes it clear that the expletive is not said or that the suggested content is not part of the advertisement.  This can also include the situation where an expletive is not used but there is a mild suggestion of the expletive and the context or media placement would not make the advertisement unsuitable.

 For example: A suggestion that a person is not wearing clothing when it is clear that the person is appropriately clothed (567/09)

• A complaint about an advertisement that includes or contains depictions of the Australian multicultural community.

 For example: Complaints about the way people are treated in ads 421/09; 296/01