Ad watchdog throws out lawyer’s complaint against ‘unhygienic’ Carlton Draught ad
Complaints made about a Carlton Draught billboard that argue that it encourages unhygienic toilet habits among men have been dismissed by the advertising watchdog.
When the first complaint was made last month, by a lawyer known by the initials JB, it prompted considerable debate on Mumbrella, with the complainant adamant that the Ad Standards Bureau would eventually find in his favour.
According to JB, the ad “implies that men do not wash their hands when they are at the pub, or that it is unmanly to do so.”
He called the ASB’s decision “hasty” and is considering asking the body to review his complaint, pointing to the testimony of an epidemiology professor, who also complained about the ad for the same reasons.
The ASB’s response to his complaint:
The Board noted that the complainant had provided extensive information regarding the health and safety implications of not washing hands after using the toilet. The Board noted the important public health message around hand washing but considered that the advertisement is not condoning or encouraging poor hygiene. The Board considered that the advertisement is simply a humorous comment on a stereotypical or real male practice and considered that whilst there is extensive community awareness campaigns regarding this issue in the Board’s view this advertisement does not contradict these campaigns in any way.
The advertiser, Carlton United Brewers, responded by saying the complaint did not reflect the “broad community view”.
In a statement, the brewer said:
The campaign is aligned to the character of Carlton Draught which has a history of using humour in the delivery of its branded messages. The billboard is a light hearted play on the common misconception that men don’t wash their hands. It is not aimed at serving staff, nor does it encourage consumers not to wash their hands. We believe it is not contrary to public health messages about hygiene and disease prevention and control and is compliant with section 2.6 of the Code. We respect the complainants’ views; however we feel that they are a subjective extrapolation of the content and not representative of the broad community view.
JB’s response to the ASB in full:
The Board made two mutually exclusive findings. One, that ‘the advertisement does suggest that men do not wash their hands after using the toilet’; and another that ‘the advertisement does not contradict [hand hygiene] campaigns in any way’.
The latter finding was on the basis that the Board did not consider that the advertisement was ‘condoning or encouraging poor hand hygiene’ despite there being a clear implication that a substantial section of the community, if not the advertiser itself, gave tacit approval to (ie condoned) the unhygienic behavior depicted in the advertisement.
The advertisement was certainly not treating the unsafe behaviour as anything other than ‘normal’, however humorous the advertiser thought the copy to be. Whatever the case, the threshold in section 2.6 of the Code is the mere ‘depiction’ of contrary material with no requirement for such material to ‘condone’ or ‘encourage’.
Taken as a guide, the Board’s determination would seem to give advertisers carte blanche to depict material contrary to community standards, be it on race, gender, sexuality or health and safety, provided such depictions are created with humorous intent. Clearly the advertisement does, as a matter of fact, contradict hand hygiene campaigns if only in a humorous way and on a subconscious level.
However the humour is so weak, and indeed tasteless, that it goes only a very small way to negating the contrary health and safety message the advertisement contains.
While the speed with which the Board makes determinations is impressive, the Board appears to have been more hasty than considered in a case where the advertiser had limitless options to promote its product in a far more humorous and not least tasteful and socially responsible manner.
Perhaps a broader concern is that the Board, by defying the expert opinion of a professor of epidemiology (who stated in their separate complaint that the advertisement sent a very poor message on a subject that is no laughing matter in the age of SARS and H1N1) appears to believe that advertising is only selectively influential and has no compunction about making decisions that throw into question whether self-regulation can actually work.
Oh well JB that was your 15 minutes, now you can go off and do something useful.
User ID not verified.
I also note that according to Fosters:
Men not washing hands is a “common misconception”, whereas
According to the ASB:
Men not washing hands is a “stereotypical or real male practice”.
They can’t both be right.
But the decision still stands, for now.
User ID not verified.
Seriously, people like this exist – “I have nothing else to do with my life apart from have a sook at a billboard that I am obviously reading far too much into”, you’d think a ‘lawyer’ would be smart enough to spot social commentary humour.
Take the joke and move on with your life mate, next you will be complaining that the Jim Beam commercial is offensive because it causes people to make fun of animals….
User ID not verified.
So JB latest vexacious ASB complaint has, predictably, failed.
So now I’m more interested in how JB is going with the AACT and his pro bono work.
User ID not verified.
I think the ASB has said it all for me.
Common sense prevails.
User ID not verified.
It would appear my, evidently narrow, view, that the advertisement takes a quite unnecessary risk with public health and safety, is quite out of step with the collective view of the Board of the ASB, about which I knew very little before making this complaint which I raised in all sincerity with the health of our community (and more interesting advertising) in mind.
All can I say is that I was wrong about how at least a majority of the Board would view this matter and Dave, AdGrunt, Groucho et al (apologies to any other high profile detractors I have omitted), despite what I think about how they express themselves from time to time, showed a far better understanding of community and ASB attitudes than I did, as well they might, if they be the seasoned ad industry types I presume them to be.
Good call (if not “well done”) and good luck.
User ID not verified.
Thanks for being such a good sport JB and providing some great banter.
User ID not verified.
I agree with Dave. It’s good to share a (metaphorical) spa after a tough game. Perhaps a beer after we’ve washed our hands too. Anything but Carlton..
User ID not verified.
OK … who pissed in the metaphorical spa?
User ID not verified.
Thank God for some common bloody sense
User ID not verified.