Deloitte Digital’s Suzuki ad banned for promoting dangerous driving
Suzuki’s ad urging consumers to have fun with their cars before the onslaught of driverless vehicles has been banned by the ad watchdog.
The campaign was created by Deloitte Digital.
The ad pushes the idea that drivers might as well have fun with their cars while they can – contrasting the joy of getting out on the road when you’re in control, compared to the bland, banal and controlled environment which awaits consumers in 2035 when all vehicles are driverless.
Complainants, however, felt the ad promoted dangerous driving, and said the ad implied responsible driving wasn’t fun.
The Ad Standards Community Panel had to consider whether the ad was in breach of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Voluntary Code of Practice for Motor Vehicle Advertising.
That code requires auto advertisers not to promote unsafe driving, including reckless or menacing driving that would breach any Commonwealth law or the law of any State or Territory in which it is broadcast. In the event the ad shows off-road driving, the driving depicted must still be appropriate for on-road conditions.
Despite Suzuki arguing the advertisement was filmed under controlled, closed-road conditions, Ad Standards took issue with two moments in particular.
“The Panel considered that the depiction of the vehicle going over the large bump at a speed which caused its wheels to leave the road was a depiction which would constitute unsafe driving if it were to take place or a road or road related area,” Ad Standards said.
The moment the vehicle pulls up near a cliff edge was also problematic, the watchdog said.
“The Panel considered that the vehicle appears to be driving at speed, and noted that although it may be driving within applicable speed limits, it still appears to be driving faster than appropriate given the conditions. The Panel considered that the scene appears to show the vehicle turning near the edge of a cliff or large drop off.
“The Panel considered that this scene was fleeting and that it was not possible to tell how controlled the turn was. The Panel considered that the depiction of the turn performed towards the edge of a large drop off was one that most members of the community would consider to be reckless driving.”
The ad went to air on free-to-air television across all metropolitan markets excluding Brisbane, and all regional markets except those in Queensland. It also ran as a pre-roll ad on catch-up TV platforms and YouTube.
Suzuki has said it will modify the ad in response to the findings.
the march of the wowsers……great ad!
User ID not verified.
This type of creative content is so obviously not compliant and should never have been produced. That’s not good for Suzuki to go through. Digital agencies who are not used to creating this type of high end content could learn that there are codes in place for the qualification of content for TV and use those to keep compliant – even if you don’t go on TV.
Try http://www.freetv.com.au/ or at least hire producers who know what they’re doing in the automotive category to save both Suzuki and Deloitte brand damage. The same goes for alcohol, food, children, political, or health products – there are tight codes in place. Just reading the code should help. Digital is no longer a Universe exempt from these rules.
Rookie mistake… sorry to out. Experience counts.
Deloitte Digital isn’t some scrappy little upstart snake oil agency…
Most of the people who work there come from big traditional agencies – I know 4 personally who are ex McCann. They know what they’re doing – this time the decision just went against them.
Happens literally all the time in this category – see AJF’s recent holden ads, DDB’s “too powerful for TV”, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Nice try plugging your own little content agency though…You got me to click your link, much to my own chagrin.
User ID not verified.
Loved this ad! Always made me giggle at the thought of a mundane driver-less future.
Brands can still highlight the ‘fun’ of driving in ways that don’t show dangerous driving e.g. Porche’s ‘Promise you’ll drive it like a Porche’ billboards…
User ID not verified.
I’m not sure which is worse. The ad or the people that complained about it.
But it does show that some multinational professional services networks may not be all they are pumped up to be. Pretty elementary to not understanding the Ad Standards.
User ID not verified.
Seriously? What a crock of politically correct shit. When the car leaves the ground it’s off road, and there are loads of off road TVC’s that show much more dramatic feats. “In the event the ad shows off-road driving, the driving depicted must still be appropriate for on-road conditions.” Why?
User ID not verified.
the ad should have been killed at concept review stage for being clunky and uninspiring
User ID not verified.
The scenes complained about are both about the 4×4 where the wheels come off the ground and driving close to the edge of the drop-off. These both seem pretty typical of 4×4 ads and quite realistic in 4×4 driving.
To me the most dangerous part of the entire ad (if any) would be where the female driver pulls away on the guy just as he is about to get in the car – but that wasn’t even part of the complaints.
User ID not verified.
looks to be 2 shots that need to be removed. Kinda not that big a deal that can’t be fixed.
Having worked in beer, we always pushed the rules. Sure Suzuki did the same. If your poking this as a disaster, I bet you’re a wet blanket to work for.
User ID not verified.
You use complaints about literally two shots in an otherwise solid ad to launch this pompous, uninformed tirade? Not a great look Anne.
User ID not verified.
Next time maybe try an ad agency for your ads and not your accountant.
User ID not verified.
Stick to accounting guys.
User ID not verified.
Whether we think the wowsers are in charge or not, anyone with any automotive marcom’s experience would have warned the agency and the client this ad would run into trouble. If the agency is full off experienced people then they would’ve and should’ve know better.
User ID not verified.
Just slip the shots of the 4×4 leaving the ground and approaching the cliff? Hardly going to ruin such a refreshing ad for this category – and certainly not going to ruin anyone’s brand. Look forward to seeing it on air again.
User ID not verified.
To anyone silly enough to think this is either news or a good enough reason to have a stab at Deloitte I’d say beware: if this is the limit of your perspective, our friends at Deloitte will soon be replacing your binary abilities with a cheaper, smarter robot.
User ID not verified.
Fucking nanny state. It’s pathetic
User ID not verified.
Deloitte Digital is excellent actually (for certain things) and some great people there, actually @eyeroll
This is a 101 rookie mistake by a producer. If you work there (and it sounds like you might), then this reveals a possible lack of experience even further.
This problem has come about nothing to do with the creative talent there by the way. Suggesting the creatives are responsible for this mistake is also misinformed on your part. It is a producer responsibility – to be 100% clear. The account service team and client really should have known better too.
No experienced producer in automotive would ever let a brand make work with that kind of breach of code, sorry. The rule about having all wheels off the ground at the very least has been in place since the early 90’s and was one of the first rules to come into play, and on top of that depicting environmental damage like that is surely doing brand damage and just irresponsible as well as in breach.
In the case of the VW campaign you mentioned it would have been approved in the first instance due to a clause that allows for more leniency when it is depicting an obviously dramatised and non-real ‘fictional’ situation like a movie set in someone’s imagination. That’s not the same as Suzuki by a long shot. An experienced producer at a big agency most likely would have warned the client that even if the ad past the approval process because of this clause, that some public outcry could still pull it down. My experience is that if DDB was involved the agency producer would have been very experienced with a really smart account service team who would have educated the client on risks and all been part of the decision to move ahead. They do this kind of work all the time and it would not have been recklessly done in my experience.
By the way – I ALWAYS disclose my identity in all industry posts and it is never a plug. I disclose who I am because I believe in transparency and have been an activist on this topic for some time, unlike others who comment anonymously, misunderstand the real point here, twist words, and in this case has incorrect information with no supporting facts and obviously no experience in this topic.
If you know anything about the automotive code through the broadcasting system you’d know that it is more than two shots in this ad that are the issue with getting this ad approved. Certainly not uninformed.. You could say a lot of things, but not that.
You obviously know your stuff. Thank you. Only the ill-informed are on their high horse here.
Dear Anne.
Thank you for the sincere concern regarding potential brand damage to Suzuki or Deloitte. It’s generous of you to express it, but potentially disingenuous to do so in a public forum?
The good news is that outside of this article and those that may choose to share it for whatever reason, the campaign continues with a couple of minor tweaks!
If you’d like to learn more about the campaign and the remarkably positive results it has been having since launch, please join the audience at the Mumbrella Automotive Marketing Summit in Sydney, August 8th.
Without giving away too much, at the conference you’ll be happy to learn that the risks involved in releasing this campaign were well understood, accepted and deemed low enough to proceed based on the well-understood potential that a minor change request might be made. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to be reminded that Deloitte is a business built on an understanding of risk, perhaps even deeper than your own?
Hopefully you’re satisfied that both parties were quite happy to take the recommendations of the panel. For those that liked the work, the changes requested have thankfully resulted in perhaps two seconds of tweaks that will in effect be invisible to most casual advertising observers and unlikely to diminish the effectiveness of the work in the slightest.
For those like the commentators on this thread that don’t like the work, I’m sorry but these slight tweaks are also unlikely to assist you in enjoying the work more.
And in relation to potential damage, the only damage likely to emerge from this scenario is going to be the leveraging of this mere whiff of ‘controversy’ to conveniently further a narrative not complementary to Deloitte or Suzuki by persons motivated to do so. This kind f opportunistic and deliberate damage is of course also evident in some of the silliness we can see in this thread.
While it is important to be cognisant of risk, I’d also put forward the importance of being aware of our own fears, prejudices and blind-spots.
They often blur our judgement.
User ID not verified.
Sour grapes.
User ID not verified.
I don’t work there.
Neither do you. It’s a pretty big and intensely arrogant assumption on your part to assume any of what went on behind the scenes, let alone to accuse people of incompetence to further your own brand.
You speak of incorrect information and no supporting facts, yet I see two long and rambling diatribes with nothing but opinion supporting them.
This whole comment thread is not a good look for you, and if I were any client reading this I’d be thinking twice before working with you. The double-edged sword of transparency activism, I suppose.
User ID not verified.
NICE CLAP BACK!
User ID not verified.
Are you Anne?
You are, aren’t you.
You are.
User ID not verified.
“…the risks involved in releasing this campaign were well understood, accepted and deemed low enough to proceed based on the well-understood potential that a minor change request might be made. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to be reminded that Deloitte is a business built on an understanding of risk, perhaps even deeper than your own?”
Is Adrian Mills saying that they knew the ad was in breach of the code and decided that being slapped with a lettuce leaf; i.e. being asked to change it – no punishment, fines, etc. wasn’t a big enough deterrent to ensure they complied with the code? It certainly reads that way – we knew we’d run out of media money before we’d have to change it so we took the risk and ignored the code that we well understood…
Is this the way Deloitte play the game? Very sad if it is.
User ID not verified.
Well done for sticking up for yourself Anne Miles!
I agree – anyone who has tenure in the industry could spot that a mile away.
It is a rookie mistake, and agree that the new agency model may hire experience, but isn’t inherent. The name says it all.
User ID not verified.
That’s the best come back to date. Bravo!
User ID not verified.
They’d have known. They’ll reach x5 more people doing it this way through the uproar and via PR. This is how clever creatives game the system.
Well done. Love it.
User ID not verified.
??????????
User ID not verified.
After reading all the comments (which were very amusing) I watched the Ad.
What on earth is all the fuss about? Seriously?
(Kids are watching games where people are being killed and shot and this is “dangerous”? Come-on!!)
Give the audience some kind of credit for not being “total” idiots. (And yes I have pretty good idea of the code of practice).
Social media seems to empower cowards to comment (negatively) anonymously…therapy for them perhaps???
Lighten up guys!
User ID not verified.