In the last two weeks we have seen the ASA: (i) remind advertisers of the rules surrounding comparative green claims; (ii) rule against ads causing widespread offence on the grounds of religion or belief; and (iii) target ads for items with investment potential. 

Airline's green claims struggle to take off 

What was complained about? An ad for a commercial airline aimed to soar for sustainable skies by claiming to provide one of the "greenest" airline services in the market. The ad was flagged by the ASA's AI-based Active Ad Monitoring system and investigated for possibly misleading customers with its eco-friendly language. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. In response to the ASA, the airline argued that it had achieved the lowest carbon emissions per passenger in any European fleet through its investment in decarbonisation and energy efficient models. The airline also emphasised its commitment to research and development in sustainable aviation fuel and ESG strategy. Despite the airline's assurances, the ASA took issue with the comparative nature of the term "greenest". Although the ASA appreciated the airline's sustainable efforts, the advertiser provided no information to allow consumers to verify their claims, as against their competitors. 

What are the ramifications? This ruling serves as a reminder of the rules surrounding comparative claims. When making a claim with an identifiable competitor, advertisers must provide consumers with sufficient information to understand the basis of the comparison and allow them to go and verify the claim themselves if they so wish. The ruling also indicates the ASA's willingness to mobilise its Active Ad Monitoring system, which may mean that environmental claims are more rigorously and frequently examined. This can be provided via a link if such information is too substantial to fit within the ad itself. 

The ASA's (Divine) Intervention 

What was complained about? The comedian, Fern Brady depicted herself as the Virgin Mary recreating a 17^th century painting by Alonso Cano in which breast milk is sprayed into the mouth of St. Bernard. The complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive because they believed it mocked the Christian faith.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA acknowledged Fern Brady's irreverent persona as a comedian and the fact that the image was based on a recognised painting. However, it held that the advert was likely to be seen as mocking the religious figures for purposes of humour and therefore, was likely to cause serious offence to some within the Christian faith. The fact that the ad appeared on a general news website (rather than a more targeted platform) further supported their conclusion. 

What are the ramifications? This ruling serves as a reminder that: (i) particular care must be taken, to avoid causing offence on certain grounds, including religion or belief ("sex or sexual orientation" and "gender" are other areas where care should be taken); and (ii) offence need not always be 'widespread' and serious offence to particular groups is likely to be enough for the ASA to take action. This ruling echoes the ASA's previous rulings including Box Menswear (where the ASA stated that due to the nature of the advertising medium – a newsletter to a men's underwear brand – images of men in underwear would have been reasonably expected by subscribers without causing offence, even if ultimately in the ruling clear outlines of penises and a penis visible through mesh would not have been). In this instance, the advertiser would have benefited from identifying the problematic area (offence on the basis of a religion or belief) and deploying targeting (e.g. advertising on sites such as Chortle where irreverent comedic images would be expected). For more on harm and offence information, see our previous post here - Sexual imagery in advertising: where do you draw the line?, Alex Lowe, Hannah Potter, John Wilks

ASA fades out Gold Bank's radio ads

What was complained about? Three radio ads for Gold Bank, a gold dealing company, were challenged by the ASA for being broadcast on a non-specialist radio station in breach of the BCAP Code, because they allegedly implied that an unregulated product could have investment potential. The first ad promoted Gold Bank London as the safe and secure way to buy gold to store for the future. The second ad highlighted Gold Bank's expertise in understanding the uniqueness of gold bars and coins, which would make the customer's buying experience a rewarding one. Lastly, the third ad focused on Gold Bank's technology which supposedly ensures the highest authenticity in gold production. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. As gold is an unregulated product, ads which imply that it could have investment potential (in the colloquial sense) and broadcast on non-specialist radio stations could mislead consumers. While the ASA acknowledged Gold Bank's response that gold was purchased as a collectable keepsake, and not only for its investment potential, it considered the three ads to have focused on gold as an investment. One of the reasons behind this finding was that the second ad referred to gold bars, which would usually be purchased for their investment potential. The ASA considered that none of the ads portrayed gold as a gift or as a cultural possession. The statements highlighting the importance of authentic, high-quality gold coupled with references to the expertise of the adviser emphasised the investment potential of the gold sold by Gold Bank. Last but not least, the ASA found that Gold Bank's website featured various membership tiers, the descriptions of which focused on the customer's investment journey, which meant that they offered an investment service. 

What are the ramifications? 

This ruling forms part of a wider initiative led by the ASA against ads for unregulated investments. Recently, the ASA targeted ads which highlighted the investment potential of wine, and advertisers can expect this trend against unregulated investment products to continue. It is important the ASA looked at Gold Bank's statements in conjunction with their website content to conclude that the overall message of their ad alluded to gold's investment potential. While the BCAP Code is usually closely aligned with the CAP Code, the two diverge in the instance of financial products, services and investments. If a company's market positioning and popular perception of their products imply (even colloquially) that unregulated products such as collector's items could have investment potential, their ads should only be broadcast on specialised financial channels, stations or programming. The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) is currently consulting on this to clarify that the restriction in rule 14.5.4 applies to unregulated products that would be regarded as investments in a colloquial sense, without unintentionally restricting ads for products outside of this type of high-risk investments that this rule was intended to cover.