Chairman Rt Hon Lord Smith of Finsbury • Chief Executive Guy Parker
ASA Council James Best • Louisa Bolch • Sally Cartwright • Elizabeth Fagan • Alison Goodman • David Harker • Gareth Jones • John Mayhead • Andrew Motion • Colin Philpott • Ruth Sawtell • Nigel Walmsley • Neil Watts • Diana Whitworth • Anthony Wilkes
The Advertising Standards Authority Limited, registered in England No 733214, Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London WC1V 6QT.
The Advertising Standards Authority (Broadcast) Limited, registered in England No 05130991, Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London WC1V 6QT. Advertising Standards Authority, Committee of Advertising Practice and Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice response to the Bailey review consultation on the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood
Introduction
1. This response is provided by the advertising self-regulatory system (‘the ASA system’; ‘the system’): the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA); the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP). We are happy for it to be published.
2. The protection of children from inappropriate or harmful advertising lies at the heart of our work and we fully support the aims of this review, to look at whether children are being sexualised or inappropriately commercialised.
3. The ASA system is grateful to Mr Bailey and the review team for the inclusive way you have approached this review, engaging with us very early on and being open and approachable throughout.
4. We were particularly impressed with the review team’s willingness to come and spend time with us, shadowing the ASA Complaints and Investigations teams to gain a clearer understanding of the way we work. We hope that this has helped you to understand the types of issues we deal with on a daily basis.
5. As the national advertising regulator, we are solely interested in the impact of advertising on the sexualisation and inappropriate commercialisation of childhood, and therefore we won’t be commenting on any other aspect of this review.
6. We are aware that prior to the launch of this review the Prime Minister and the media had raised concerns about the marketing of inappropriate products to children, such as padded bikini tops, pole dancing kits and Lolita beds for young girls.
7. Whilst we fully understand the concerns about inappropriate marketing of such products, none of the examples given have, to our knowledge, been advertised.
8. Since the launch of this review the ASA has undertaken an analysis of the number and type of complaints we have received (where children are referenced) and ASA action, which we have already shared with the review team. Through that analysis we have not seen evidence of a problem with the strength of the advertising rules when it comes to protecting children. A summary of that analysis is at Annex A.
9. This echoes the findings of CAP and BCAP’s 2009 review of all the Advertising Codes, which included a full public consultation, generating around 5,000 substantive responses. Through that review, CAP and BCAP found no evidence to suggest a need for major strengthening of the Code protections for children.
10. In the past we have seen isolated incidents of inappropriate advertising affecting children, but we have seen no evidence that those individual cases are indicative of a widespread problem with advertising. Where such incidents have occurred, the ASA has taken action.
11. Whilst we believe that, overall, the ASA system is robust in this area; we are constantly seeking to improve. Therefore this response will outline the work we’ve been doing to improve our approach to regulating advertising when it comes to children. We also have some suggestions for how this review can help: by bringing forward proposals that will improve access and awareness of the ASA and other media regulators for both parents and children.
12. First of all, we will give a brief overview of how the system works and the rules we have in place to protect children from inappropriate or harmful advertising.
About the ASA system
13. The ASA is the UK’s one-stop shop for advertising complaints across all media (TV, radio, cinema, print, press, outdoor, internet, direct mail etc). 14. We enforce two Advertising Codes – one for non-broadcast ads (the ‘CAP
Code’) and one for broadcast ads (the ‘BCAP Code’). These Codes are written and maintained by two industry bodies: the Committee of
Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP).
15. The system is both self-regulatory (for non-broadcast advertising) and co-regulatory (for broadcast advertising: there is a co-co-regulatory partnership with Ofcom for TV and radio advertising). Compliance with the Codes is compulsory and all upheld adjudications are strictly enforced.
16. Broadly speaking, the Codes are designed to ensure that all advertising is legal, decent, honest and truthful, but they also include more prescriptive rules for sensitive sectors such as alcohol, gambling, food and finance, as well as specific rules for advertising to children.
17. The ASA accepts complaints from the public and competitors about ads that appear to be misleading, harmful, or offensive; but we don’t just wait for complaints to come in. The system also has a compliance and monitoring team that proactively monitors ads in all media on a daily basis to check for compliance with the Codes. The team also undertakes surveys in high profile areas such as gambling or alcohol, or amongst sectors with lower compliance records.
18. We receive no taxpayer funding as we have always been funded entirely by the advertising industry. Our funding mechanisms operate at arm’s length and we are independent of both Government and industry. It costs around £7.5m per year to fund the system.
19. The ASA is widely recognised by Government, industry, consumers, the Courts and partner regulators, for example the OFT and Ofcom, as the established means for providing consumer protection against misleading, offensive or harmful advertising.
The rules
20. There are 61 individual protections in the CAP Code relating to advertising and children and 78 in the BCAP Code. The difference is largely down to the detailed scheduling rules that are required for broadcast advertising and, in reality, the protections afforded by both Codes are very similar. 21. The Advertising Codes can be accessed in full via the CAP website, but
broadly speaking, ads directed at, likely to appeal to, or likely to be seen by children should not contain anything that could result in their physical, mental or moral harm. The Advertising Codes define a child as anyone under the age of 16 years. In summary, ads must not:
Contain anything that is likely to result in a child’s physical, mental or moral harm
Exploit a child’s credulity, loyalty, vulnerability or lack of experience
Actively encourage children to make a nuisance of themselves to parents or others
Condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children
Encourage children to copy any practice that might be unsafe
22. Whilst some rules are open to interpretation one thing is absolutely clear: sexualising children in an advertisement is inappropriate and will lead to immediate ASA action. Fortunately the sexualisation of children in advertisements is extremely rare.
23. In recent years, the protections for children in the Advertising Codes have been strengthened even further:
Rules surrounding specific products such as food and alcohol have been significantly tightened in response to evidence relating to, and public concerns about, childhood obesity and underage drinking
The new Advertising Codes, launched in September 2010, contain new scheduling restrictions for age-restricted computer and console games
An over-arching ‘social responsibility clause’ has been included in the new BCAP Code, so on occasions where an ad may adhere to the ‘letter’ but not the ‘spirit’ of the rules, the ASA will still be able to have the ad withdrawn. This clause already existed in the CAP Code.
24. On top of this, on 1 March this year, the ASA’s remit was extended significantly further online to cover marketing communications on companies’ own websites and in other third party space under their control, such as social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.
25. Prior to this remit extension the ASA regulated advertising broadly defined as anywhere in paid-for-space. This included online and in more traditional media, such as TV, radio, cinema, billboards, magazines, newspapers and more.
26. This remit extension is a significant development for the ASA, which responds to the concerns of UK consumers, industry and policy makers that we should be regulating this website space.
27. It is the culmination of more than two years’ work by the advertising industry to put in place a workable regulatory framework, with the necessary funding and robust new sanctions to allow the ASA to enforce our decisions.
28. The CAP Code will be applied in full to this new space, including all 61 protections for children. You can read more about the remit extension, here.
29. The UK advertising industry has a good track record of responding to change by developing the system into new areas. They are currently working with the European Advertising Standards Alliance (Europe’s single authority on advertising self-regulation, of which we are also a member) to develop a workable self-regulatory regime for online behavioural advertising.
Industry training
30. Although a lot of work has taken place in recent years to ensure the Advertising Codes are robust, the regulatory system is not simply concerned with punishing advertisers; for us it’s just as important to give the industry the information they need to ensure their ads are responsible before they appear.
31. CAP and BCAP have invested much time and resources to develop ‘CAP Services’, which is a range of advice and help services that are easily accessible by the industry, many of which are free. They include:
A free, confidential ‘Copy Advice’ service for advertisers, agencies and media who want to check prospective non-broadcast ads or creative ideas against the CAP Code
Website audits for advertisers who want to ensure their websites comply with the ASA’s new extended online remit
Regular industry training seminars on topics including the responsible advertising of video games, films, alcohol, food, gambling and the protection of children
Bespoke seminars for advertisers on specific topics
A CAP Services website, with Help Notes and advice articles on specific topics, sectors and issues, as well as newsletters and webcast presentations on the new online remit.
32. In 2010, CAP Services delivered over 45,500 pieces of advice and training to the advertising industry, which is not only testament to the work of CAP, but also shows that many advertisers are working hard to ensure they comply with the Codes. CAP are continually looking at how they can improve their services, including the possible introduction of a premium ‘Copy Advice’ service, where advertisers can pay for a four-hour turnaround on their ads or creative ideas.
Consumer engagement
33. As consumers are our key stakeholder, we undertake annual consumer conferences around the UK, where we talk directly with consumers about our work. In recent years our conferences in Edinburgh and Nottingham have focussed on responsible alcohol advertising and the use of violent imagery in ads. The information we gain at these conferences is fed back to the ASA Council, to help them in their work adjudicating on ads.
34. In 2010 however, we decided to undertake a more focussed engagement project to gauge the views of children and parents both on our approach to regulation and our decisions.
35. Working with a research company in South Wales, we have undertaken focus groups with children, parents and carers, and workshops in four schools. We hope to have the final results of this work within the next month or two, but early indications are that the work has produced some really interesting results.
36. We have committed to sharing the results of this work with the review team and to publishing a results summary on our website in due course. We hope that the project will form the basis of further research on advertising and children later this year.
How the review can help
37. Overall, we believe that the advertising regulatory system offers robust, proportionate protections for children from inappropriate or harmful
advertising, alongside well developed information and training services to help advertisers comply. Where problems do occur, we also believe that the ASA system is best placed to address those problems.
38. For example, early indications from our work with children and parents in South Wales are that more could be done to raise awareness of where to go to complain about ads.
39. MORI research for the Press Complaints Commission indicates that, relative to some other media regulators, awareness of the ASA is high1 and we are working hard to raise awareness further, including by launching a new national consumer ad campaign this month, to highlight the ASA and our new online remit.
40. To complement this work, we believe that the review team could help by recommending the development of an independently hosted, easily accessible and well publicised online portal, to help parents and children navigate the various regulatory systems if they have concerns about something in the media.
41. This idea stems from a proposal in the Conservative manifesto, to develop a new online system that gives parents greater powers to take action against irresponsible commercial activities targeted at children. Whilst we strongly believe that a Government online mechanism that enabled direct action would undermine the existing trusted mechanisms already offered by the ASA and others (including due process and consistent regulatory approach), we do believe that the idea of a new online portal that signposts the regulatory systems already in place, and provides information about the do’s and don’t’s, would be helpful.
42. We already offer a variety of ways to complain (online, email, letter, telephone), but of the 25,500 complaints we resolved in 2010, over 90% came via our website, which offers a ‘step-by-step’ online complaints form. The use of our online complaints mechanism has been rising year-on-year for some time, so a new online portal could act as a signpost, directing consumers to the ASA website if they are concerned about ads, or other media regulators where appropriate (Ofcom, PhonePayPlus, Press Complaints Commission, ATVOD etc).
1
43. Once consumers reach our website, we offer a simple and accessible complaints service, which is free and confidential for members of the public. There is no age limit for complaints and we contact each complainant to let them know the status of their complaint. If taken forward for investigation, each case will always be the responsibility of a named individual at the ASA.
44. Under the ASA system, one complaint can, and often does, result in an upheld investigation. The strength of this approach was demonstrated in January this year when a single complaint to the ASA by a 10 year old boy resulted in an upheld adjudication against a TV ad for the film ‘Saw 3D’.
45. What matters to us is compliance with the Codes. We are cautious about playing a ‘number’s game’. An ad that is clearly in breach of the Codes could appear only once, thereby reducing the likelihood that it would attract a large number of complaints. Conversely, the increasing prevalence of orchestrated complaint campaigns by small minorities who feel passionately about a single issue can, and often does, greatly inflate the number of complaints about ads that do not pose problems for the vast majority of readers/viewers.
46. We envisage that this new online portal would make it easier for individual members of the public, like the boy above, to navigate the various established regulatory systems in place, whether their complaint is about an ad, a TV programme, a sponsorship credit or a press article.
Conclusion
47. We look forward to the results of this review and will of course consider any findings relevant to advertising regulation. In the meantime, we would be happy to meet with the review team to talk through this idea for a new online portal in more detail, or any other aspect of our work.
48. If you there are any questions, or would like to talk, please contact me on 020 7492 2121, or at [email protected].
Michael Todd
Annex A – Children and Advertising; Summary of complaints and ASA action
Overview
Over the course of 2008 and 2009 (the last two years for which we have complete data), 1364 ads attracted 6276 complaints about their impact on, or portrayal of, children. To put these numbers into context, the ASA received 55,400 complaints about 29,500 ads in total during the same period. Just 4.6% of the ads which received complaints overall did so on the grounds of their impact on children (drawing 11% of the complaints).
It should also be noted that just a small fraction of the tens of millions of ads that appear in the UK (as many as 160 million over the last two years) attract complaints. In addition, ASA sector compliance surveys regularly indicate that more than 97% of ads are compliant with the Ad Codes.
Please note: the ASA complaints database is not designed for retrieving data based on a specific or narrow set of search criteria. Complaints are categorised on the basis of the media in which it appeared (e.g. magazine), broad sector (e.g. retail sector) and issue under the Advertising Codes (e.g. misleading, harmful or offensive). Therefore, the following analysis is based on a subjective interrogation of the data. Each case has been looked at and categorised in line with the areas of concern that are referenced by policy makers. For example a term like ‘commercialisation’, is not used by complainants or ASA Complaints Executives.
In addition some ads attract complaints about multiple issues (e.g. harmful and misleading) so the figures quoted within the various categories might not add up to the total number of complaints / cases (the number of ads about which we have received complaints).
Notwithstanding these qualifications, the figures do give a clear indication of the overall trends and types of complaints the ASA receives where children are the subject.
The complaints we receive can be placed into five discrete categories:
1 Sex/ nudity/ sexualisation Where complainants object to ads on the grounds of nudity or sexual content, which they felt was both unsuitable and/or likely to be seen by children e.g. lingerie and perfume ads or ads for lap dancing clubs.
‘Sexualisation’ covers objections about children being depicted in a sexual context. 2. Harm Objections on the grounds that ads might
cause moral or physical harm by encouraging emulation of, or participation in, harmful, anti-social or dangerous behaviour e.g. playing on farm machinery.
We have included ads that seek to employ ‘pester power’ or which might be judged to encourage ‘negative body image’.
3. Depiction of violence Objections to ads glamorising violence or guns in a context that might appeal to children. 4. Frightening/ distressing Objections to ads on the grounds they cause
undue distress or are frightening to children. 5. Other Complaints referring to an ad’s impact on
children, but which do not fall under any of the above categories e.g. misleading ads.
ASA ‘children’ complaints data
Category 2008 2009 No. of Complaints No. of ads No. of Complaints No. of ads Sex/Nudity/Sexualisation 1472 254 409 180 Harm 1173 395 1126 179 Depiction of violence 136 26 49 21 Frightening/Distressing 1224 149 404 156 Other 274 4 9 5 Total 4279 828 1997 541 Outcome 2008 2009 No. of Complaints No. of ads No. of Complaints No. of ads Not Investigated 886 471 790 395
Not Investigated after Council Decision (NICD)2 1506 102 652 81 Not upheld 853 29 292 31 2
Some complaints, usually those about offensiveness or harm, are put before the ASA Council for a decision about whether or not the complaint should be pursued. It requires only one Council member to ask for a complaint to be taken forward for a formal investigation. If no Council member raises a concern then the complaint is dismissed. For more information on how complaints are assessed visit the ASA
Upheld 720 28 109 29
Outside of remit (OOR) 234 168 93 79
Withdrawn 35 35 29 29
In 2008, complaints which raised concerns about children represented 16.1% of the total complaints received by the ASA (26,433), and 5.3% of the total ads which attracted complaints (15,556).
In 2009, such complaints comprised 6.9% of the total received by the ASA (28,978), and 3.9% of the total ads which attracted complaints (13956).
Complaint numbers do appear, at first glance, to be significantly higher in 2008 than in 2009. This can, in part, be explained by the occurrence in 2008 of several ads that received many hundreds of complaints each (including ads by AMI Clinic Ltd and Barnardo's). Given the relatively low number of complaints and cases overall, these ads can act to create discrepancies in the totals.
That said, more ads did receive complaints in 2008 than in 2009 under the categories subject to this review. Complaint numbers do vary from year to year, as do the types of issues complained about and it does not appear to signal a particular trend.
Conclusion
This review of ASA complaints data looked at more than 6,000 complaints relating to 1,300 unique ads received by the ASA in 2008 and 2009. The results
of this assessment show that, when it comes to complaints about the content of ads, relatively few concerns are raised over sexualisation or commercialisation of children. The majority of complaints referencing children did so in the broader context of harm (encouraging emulation of bad or dangerous behaviour), distress or fear (charity ads featuring harrowing images) and sex/nudity (lingerie ads, mild sexual innuendo in an adult context, sexual health messages).
