Nissan’s fake race to hospital ad gets banned a second time
Nissan has been forced to pull an ad for its Pulsar for a second time after changes it made following a first set of complaints were insufficient.
It is one of the few occasions in this history of the Ad Standards Board that the same ad has effectively been banned twice.
The commercial features a young couple racing through the streets against the clock to a hospital. The woman appears to be pregnant, before revealing she is wearing a fake bump and they are testing themselves to see how fast they can get there.
A first version of the ad was banned by the ASB back in June after complaints that it showed dangerous driving including the female passenger urging the male driver to go faster.
Nissan then put out a re-edited version without the woman urging her boyfriend on, and with lower volume engine noise. It also reduced the squeal of brakes when the car arrived.
(Ad courtesy of Ebiquity)
However the new version – which aired on TV and was online – drew renewed complaints – including the car racing up close behind another car and the driver referring to his “personal best”. One complainant said that it celebrated hooning.
Complaints to the ASB included:
“The whole basis of the ad is showing the car hurtling along city roads at great speed with seemingly little regard for its surroundings. The premise is that this erractic or desperate style of driving is to get the pregnant woman, who is in labor, to hospital. The twist is that she is not pregnant – it is a time trial “game” – so the speed is just hooning and demonstrating how fast the car can go. I am appalled that this ad promotes this type of terrible, irresponsible driving as ok. It is clearly not ok – it is dangerous and in surely in breach of Nissan’s responsibility to use responsible driving to advertise their cars.”
Nissan responded to the complaint that it showed the car getting too close to another by saying: “The vehicle is only shown for a very short of time driving behind a Mercedes model vehicle. At the low speed at which the Pulsar is shown driving behind this vehicle, the distance between the Pulsar and the Mercedes is more than adequate to be considered a ‘safe distance’.”
It added: “Nissan submits that the man’s comment in the TVC regarding “personal best” (and having arrived more quickly at the hospital than on previous occasions) is not ‘competitive driving’.
It ruled: “The Board considered that despite the amendments made by the advertiser there is still an audio indicator of speed, and this accompanied by the visual footage of the car being driven down narrow streets is still suggestive of a vehicle driving in a manner which is not appropriate for the urban environment depicted and is unsafe.
“The Board noted that in the modified version of the advertisement the overall theme of the advertisement retains the concept of racing against the clock and considered that consistent with its original determination the suggestion of a driver trying to beat his own time is a depiction which is not appropriate for a vehicle being driven on public roads and is unsafe.
“Whilst it is morally questionable as to whether using a fake pregnancy in order to drive to the hospital and park in a premium spot outside it is acceptable, the advertisement does not depict any material which would be contrary to community standards on health and safety.”
Despite the finding, Nissan has decided to stick with the ad, switching to a third version. It still shows the race to the hospital, but the “beep” of the stop watch”and the man saying “Personal best” have now been removed.
The ad was made by Whybin\TBWA\Melbourne.
Meanwhile, the new version of the ad – which Nissan put online a fortnight ago – has already drawn complaints. One poster on Nissan’s YouTube channel states: “You fucking idiots, this ad came up when I wasn’t looking and everyone in my room thought I was watching a porno because of that noisy bitch at the start of the video.”
Oh come on! The Australian equivalent to the Road Safety Authority should respond with a replica of the ad… Where the couple end up losing control of the car, smashing into a brick wall and dying.
User ID not verified.
Doesn’t matter how they advertise the car, even if they actually said one important fact about the car in the ad (which they don’t, because nothing can be said about it) it still won’t get me to buy such an entry level go kart.
User ID not verified.
A poor execution.
Although this article did make me compare the price of a SSS and an 86.
Same money…
So in one way the Nissan execution was good – I was on their website for a few minutes 🙂
User ID not verified.
Surely logic would tell you to make appropriate contact with the ASB to get approval before releasing the ad for the second time?
User ID not verified.
Have to admit I agree with the idea of a ban, and it does seem to encourage speeding.
It also does give the distinct impression, on first viewing, that there is a pregnant woman in a car that is speeding. Less than ideal.
User ID not verified.
What a joke, Nanny state infection has reached the ASB, people do speed when their wives are about to have a baby, that’s called reality. What a precious species we’ve become to have this ad banned is a joke and so is the ASB.
User ID not verified.
The ASB is absolutely justified in banning both versions of the ad. The total offer of the ad message is based on speeding, which is in breach of the code. Agencies and advertisers who insist on finding ‘clever’ ways to circumvent industry standards only supply the opponents of self regulation with more ammunition to push for greater government controls.
User ID not verified.
I mean… how could they NOT think that in someway this promotes that its OK to speed. I must be getting old – but I agree with the decision to pull this.
User ID not verified.
Haha oh that youtube complaint is gold
User ID not verified.
That is ridiculous. I don’t overly love the ad but it isn’t that bad. Up tight do gooders
User ID not verified.
How on earth was it ever approved in the first place? Speeding/dangerous driving has been a no-go with car ads for some time now.
User ID not verified.
There’s a big difference between speeding and driving efficiently.
User ID not verified.
As your garden-variety Australian of average intelligence, I for one am glad this has been banned.
The prospect of allowing grown adults to make their own decisions scares me, so knee jerk bannings such as this are a response that brings me great comfort.
User ID not verified.
Yabba yabba blah bla bla…..where does it indicate that the car is speeding?
This young couple (fictional young couple) drive along the shortest and most direct rout to the hospital to check on the time it will take them to do so when the great moment arrives. They discover that they can do it within a rough time frame that will alleviate the panic on the day. What is the big deal?
Where do we see the car speeding or driving dangerously?
User ID not verified.
And somewhere in the world there are real problems…
User ID not verified.
It was shown on Melbourne Television TONIGHT! (Aug 1)
My wife commented “That Ad is still being shown!”
User ID not verified.
Ridiculous banning this ad. I am so over this nanny state attitude. I don’t care whether it is a good ad or not, banning for the reason given is plain dumb!
User ID not verified.
Seriously… Everyone complains when ads are boring, everyone complains when ads push the limits of what the cardigan wearing members of society deem ‘acceptable’… the idea has merit, it’s a new way to look at saying the car has some go. Maybe turbo engine cars should be banned, not just the ads that try and sell them.
User ID not verified.
Can they just start the ad with a big disclaimer “This ad is meant to be an entertaining piece of fiction. In no way does Nissan promote dangerous driving, even if it is your first child”.
Would probably even make the ad funnier.
User ID not verified.