UPHELD
In the advert of for the Act on CO2 the ASA had banned this from being aired on television. The reason for this was that it had received a total of 840 complaints mainly from parents. The reason being was that the advert was classed under "misleading and scaremongering...exaggerating the likelihood and impact of extreme weather conditions". The advert consisted of a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of what would happen if we keep wasting energy and CO2. The story showed children drowning with their toys and misery amongst the city. This advert was shown before the hours of 6:00 on national television which meant that most children would see it too. This was a main reason why the advert was banned and complained about as children and adults too found the advert too dark and harsh on the audiences watching. The ASA upheld the complaints and banned the advert immediately.
My opinion and view on the advert being banned by the ASA is that they do have a point on where the advert may come across as scaremongering to viewers. The message of the advert aimed to snake sure that people understand the effect CO2 has on the world. It did exaggerate the effects to make sure people understand the worst that could happen but this also caused fear in many who viewed it. Hence why it was banned. On the other hand I could argue that the ASA and complaints were a bit harsh as the advert was trying to get a serious message out to the viewers. Even though the message was over exaggerated the it did make people think about what they were doing in terms of saving energy and being wary of saving energy for the best.
Advert: "Engineer" Volkswagen 2008
UPHELD
This advert was upheld due to "viewers complaining that the advert was too violent and shown before 9pm". The advert consisted of an engineer who'd been working in an office. As the advert had been going on it involved another engineer fighting with the one shown before. The two go through various events wth other people involved fighting and getting involved in various violent actions. The ASA had shortly been made aware of this advert as it was shown on national to quite a few times. The advert got a massive 1,070 complaints from viewers who were mainly parents. Even though the advert was not targeted at children it was televised before 9pm and thus was a problem as most children would be able to view the advert as any time before 9pm would not be suitable for children.
My opinion on the advert being banned is that I strongly agree that it was upheld. This was due to high amount of violence demonstrated and that it was too innapropriate for the ages that were viewing it. Furthermore the time it was televised on national television didn't help the advert itself as many complained that their children were seeing this advert. This may cause an influence or even traumatise some viewers. The main reason or the key reason why the advert was upheld was because of the violence involved and the innapropriate broadcasting time.
Advert: "Hooked" Department Of Health-2007.
UPHELD
The Department of health had another adver of theirs upheld by the ASA when viewers had complained about their "Hooked" advert. This was because bowers complained the ad was "offensive, frightening and distressing - particularly to children". The advert itself featured a man who was in office work going about his day when out of nowhere a hooked had been attached to his cheek and had gone through his skin dragging him through the office to an outlet outside to have a quick cigarette. The aim of the advert was to show a message of getting "un-hooked" mind upon the addiction of getting "hooked" on cigarettes. The message was seen as too innapropriate for viewers who not just under age but also anyone who sees it and cannot handle brutality. This could be a big problem amongst audiences hence forth the ASA had upheld the ad.
In my opinion I agree with the ASA's decision as to why they banned the advert. I too found and believed that it was too frightening for children to watch and it was very distressing to be put on national television for viewers of all ages to be able to see. However the advert did convey a message which got people who do smoke to think about what they're doing. By making the advert very distressing it may make smokers to re-think what they are doing. This message can be seen in many ways all depending on who is viewing it therefore you can say the ASA were a bit harsh with their decision. The DONH were trying to get smokers to stop smoking through this advert and didn't intend for anything else, therefore the reason you could argue for the ASA being harsh.
No comments:
Post a Comment