By Tom Mitchell, Summer Intern and Clint Fillipou, Managing Principal Melbourne |
January 2015 |
The start of the new year is a good time to look back on the year that’s been and reflect on some of the more interesting complaints brought before the Advertising Standards Board (ASB). In this report we focus on 2014’s motor vehicle advertising complaints and see if there are any noticeable trends emerging.
Not surprisingly given the influx of new technologies making their way in to our cars, two of the more interesting decisions focused on technology and driver behaviours.
Honda CR-V
A TVC for Honda’s CR-V depicted various cars of different makes performing a range of every day manoeuvres before having the CR-V complete the same tasks. One of the main features of the advertisement featured the use of the Honda’s reversing camera. The complaint put forward to the Board was that the sole use of the driving aide promoted unsafe driving practices, and that the use of a reversing camera generally was unsafe. The Board dismissed the complaint stating that ‘when the vehicle is being reversed, the driver does utilise the reversing camera, but there is no suggestion that the driver relied only on the camera and the use of the reversing camera.’ The Board further surmised that the general community would come to the conclusion that the reversing camera is an aide in parking and is not to be used as the only method when performing such an act. The Board also considered the depiction of other vehicles hitting obstacles and was clear that in the Board’s view the advertisement was not promoting unsafe driving but rather ‘demonstrating how not to park and the advantages of the features on the advertised vehicle’. In terms of the take away message with this determination, firstly the Board was able to clearly and appropriately analyse the driving behaviours depicted in this case and delineate between the hero vehicle and the “poor example” vehicles, and in doing so it took a welcome, common sense approach to assessing what the advertisement was really saying, rather than potentially getting caught up in a semantic interpretation of the Code. It is also a really clear and common sense example of how the Board may assess the use of driving aids in the future, when manufacturers attempt to safely and properly illustrate the features available in their vehicles.
BMW 2 Series
A cinema advertisement for BMW depicted a 2 Series Coupe being driven on both sealed and unsealed roads. During the sequence it was shown that the BMW was kicking up dust whilst on the unsealed roads and engine revving was heard. The complaint was concerned that the sequence illustrated and glamorized typical ‘hoon’ behaviour and was not appropriate. The Board in consideration of the merits of this complaint noted that at one point the BMW pulls away to loud engine noises and that skid marks could be seen on the road. While not an actual breach of the FCAI Code the Board noted that these visuals were not in the spirit of the FCAI Code explanatory notes which state ‘‘Advertisers should ensure that advertisements…avoid explicitly or implicitly drawing attention to the acceleration or speed capabilities of a vehicle.” Coupled with this the Board further noted that such actions contravened the Australian Road Rules whereby “a person must not start a vehicle, or drive a vehicle, in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke.” The Board upheld the complaint on these grounds but also made an interesting point about the “speeding” depicted in the advertisement, where it held that because it was not possible to ascertain whether the vehicle was actually speeding as there was no speedometer shown, it was not prepared in this case to determine that the vehicle was definitively speeding. The Board found that ‘whilst the start of the advertisement suggests that the vehicle is pulling away at speed in the Board’s view it is not possible to gauge the speed of the vehicle or to assess whether the vehicle would be traveling at speeds in excess of the relevant speed limits.’
Mazda CX-9
A TVC for Mazda featuring the new CX-9 depicted various features of the car in a range of settings. Like the CR-V example above, the contentious scene in this case showed the driver using the vehicle’s technology while driving. In this case it was the Blind Spot Monitoring Mirror (BSM mirror). The voiceover stated that with the vehicle’s technologies, “you’re not going to miss a thing”. The complaint raised that the driver was over-reliant on technology and did not perform the necessary checks prior to changing lanes. Upon consideration of the material, and the complaint, the Board found that ‘there is no suggestion that the driver would rely only on the mirrors to conduct a change of lanes’ and dismissed the complaint. The Board also looked at how common members of the community would interpret the ad and stated that they would understand that such features would be used as driving aids and ‘not the sole mechanism to be used when carrying out regular driving practices.’ Again, the Board has taken a reasonable and common sense approach here in that motor vehicle manufacturers should be allowed to advertise the features of their vehicles, and use some creative licence when doing so, provided the applicable codes are not obviously breached while doing so.
Final comments
As outlined above we have seen a clear, sensible approach in the ASB’s motor vehicle advertising determinations in 2014, and the above examples illustrate this. Manufacturers should take note that the advertisements that were the subject of the dismissed complaints discussed above used technology in a reasonable, common and functional manner, and above all in a safe and controlled way, all of which went down very well with the ASB.
Contact us
If you would like further information on the above and how it impacts on you or your business, please contact one of our experts below.
Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook Follow us on LinkedIn
