In this week's post, we bring you key updates from ASA rulings which: (i) highlight the care that must be taken when running ads which look like TV shows; (ii) reinforce the ASA's take on harmful stereotypes and (iii) remind businesses of price comparison requirements.

Spot the difference: #ad or editorial? 

What was complained about? An ad for an energy company that aired during a commercial break in George Clarke's Amazing Spaces was challenged for not being distinguishable from editorial content. The ad, which featured TV presenter George Clark, was styled similarly to the show and began with the words “GEORGE CLARKE'S Amazing GREEN Spaces” using similar font to the show and displayed against a backdrop of greenery, highly similar to the show's title imagery. The ad included the text '#ad' in the top right corner for the first 12 seconds, followed by text about the energy company's products and services.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The BCAP Code requires advertorial content to be quickly and obviously distinguishable from editorial content. The ASA pointed out “television ads must not refer to themselves in a way that might lead viewers to believe they were watching a programme”.  Although the ad included '#ad', this was insufficient against the other stylistic similarities and use of a variant of the title. The text was also small and in a similar font to the programme's text which made it easy to overlook. Other factors, such as the presenter's dialogue and presentation closely mirroring his style on the show, and the fact that the first half of the ad didn't reference the products which were being advertised, led the ASA to conclude that the audience was likely to interpret the ad as programme content, and not be able to quickly recognise it as advertising material.   

What are the ramifications? The ASA have not previously ruled on distinguishing ads under the BCAP Code. This ruling provides a useful case study for broadcast marketers seeking to allude to and leverage the reputation of editorial content (one assumes that the advertiser must have paid for the rights to make these references which ultimately landed them in hot water with the regulator). As provided for in the BCAP Code, factors such as title, imagery, logos, presenters, the general style and how early-on advertised products are mentioned will be considered by the ASA when assessing whether an ad falls foul of the rules. The ASA reiterated BCAP 2.1 whereby viewers must be able to quickly identify the content as obviously being an ad. Crucially, #ad may not be enough to allow viewers to recognise content as ads and advertisers must take care to ensure the prominence of any programme elements does not create confusion as to the nature of the content being viewed.

ASA swipes left on dodgy dating app  

What was complained about? A Facebook ad posted by “Ladies for a Night” advertised SofiaDate's controversial dating service by asking consumers the following question: “Ukrainian Women need the protection of strong and mature men from the West. Do you want to support them?”. The ad included further text stating “For Men 40+ [pointing emoji] Ukrainian Women [fire emoji]”. The complainant questioned whether the ad promoted harmful and objectifying stereotypes. 

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA was not impressed by SofiaDate's approach to finding "the one”, instead viewing the ad as likely to cause serious offence. The ad played on gender stereotypes about women’s vulnerability and men’s roles as “protectors.”  The images of women in the ad were deliberately youthful, contrasting sharply with the emphasis on “Men 40+” and “mature men.” In the ASA’s view, this dynamic reinforced further harmful stereotypes, including the notion that “Eastern European women are more open to relationships with older men from wealthy countries.”

What are the ramifications? This ruling demonstrates the ASA's strict approach to ads that exploit harmful stereotypes or objectify individuals. Advertisers have a broad social responsibility to ensure that ads are prepared with sensitivity. In this instance, while the gender stereotypes alone would likely have been considered a breach of the codes by the ASA, the ad worsened the situation by linking these stereotypes to current and sensitive political contexts. 

The Price is (almost) Right, says ASA 

What was complained about? The online wine retailer, Winedrops, was (i) put to proof over its comparative claims in social media adverts that 'Our Price' is less than the 'Price You're Used To' and (ii) challenged on whether the image of five white stars in green squares (bearing an uncanny resemble a Trustpilot rating) was misleading.

What was the ruling? Upheld. The ASA found that the price comparison website used by Winedrops to generate their data did not include any supermarkets or larger retailers and therefore, the prices quoted in the adverts' comparison table were not an accurate representation of those found across the general market. Similarly, there was no evidence of any official five star Trustpilot rating for the retailer - the five star review featured in the ad was left by an individual customer on their own website and Winedrops' actual Trustpilot rating at the time of ruling was 4.4 stars. The claims were therefore found not be substantiated and were held to be misleading. 

What are the ramifications? This ruling is a clear reminder to advertisers of their obligation to provide clear and reliable evidence when using price comparisons. The ASA will not allow business' to falsely claim a price advantage through vague or generalised statements as consumers must be able to fully understand the nature of any comparisons (including by reference to the date of comparison and how the comparative price was determined). In relation to reviews, the advertiser's use of white stars within green squares to refer to reviews on their own website was found to be misleading since consumers would confuse this imagery with official Trust Pilot imagery of the same style. Advertisers should take care not to imply that reviews from their own websites are reviews from independent review websites (such as Trust Pilot).