ASA Adjudication on Barnardos

Ad

a. A 60 second TV ad for Barnardo's began with a scene which showed two teenagers fighting outside a shop while a customer and the shopkeeper inside the shop looked on. The scene then cut to a teenage girl behind a prison door; then to her at a kitchen table where a man was seen to hit her hard on the back of the head, saying "So they've let you out again have they, you worthless little cow”; then to her at a desk in a school classroom looking up at the teacher and answering tearfully "I don't know what it says" while someone in the background was heard to say "She can't read". Finally, she was shown in a deserted setting after having used drugs while a man was heard to shout "You ok? Ere, ere, 20 quid". The last four scenes alternated repeatedly at increasing speed, emphasising the sound of the slap and the girl's sobs. The sound of the girl's sobs continued in the background as large text across a white screen stated "For thousands of children in the UK the story will keep repeating itself, until someone stops it". Large text on a second white screen stated "Believe in children". Barnardo's name and logo was shown underneath it. Text underneath stated "See the difference we make at ..." (Barnardo's website address followed).

b. A 40 second TV ad showed the same scenes but repeated them less often than in ad (a).

Issue

1. The majority of the viewers considered the ads, particularly the repeated scenes of violence and drug-taking, were distressing to watch and challenged whether they caused serious or widespread offence.

2. 48 challenged whether the ads were suitable for transmission at times when large numbers of children were likely to be watching.

3. 29 viewers, some of whom reported being abused as children, challenged whether the ads were likely to cause serious distress to those who saw them.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Barnardo's said the aim of the campaign was to show that Barnardo's believed in children, regardless of their background and what they had done, and to show how their work could break the vicious cycle of disadvantage that lead children and young people into trouble.  They supplied comments they had received from various organisations related to childrens social welfare, as well as members of the public, praising the ads and the aim of the campaign.  They said they had received an overwhelmingly positive response to the TV ads and the wider campaign of which they were a part.

1. Barnardo's said they had taken care to ensure the scenes shown did not contravene society's moral, social or cultural standards and that they had minimised the violence and drug-taking.  They acknowledged that the content was hard hitting, but said that was because they needed to show the grim reality of the life of the young person concerned and for the public to understand it.  They said they had chosen to show the father smacking the back of his daughter's head to reflect that in UK society, unlike many other European countries, smacking remained a widespread parenting technique; in their experience, domestic violence was often far more violent than was shown in the ads.  They said they did not believe the ads were inconsistent with what had previously been considered acceptable after 9 pm.

Clearcast said they regretted the offence and distress the ads had caused and that they had recognised at approval stage that they were likely to generate some adverse reaction.  They said note 4 to rule 6.2 (Violence and cruelty) of the TV Code contained provision for charity ads to contain scenes that might otherwise be unacceptable to viewers.

2. Barnardo's said the ads were approved for transmission on the condition that they were shown after 9 pm only to ensure they were viewed within adult programme content rather than programmes that were aimed at children or which had a high incidence of children viewing.  They said that, in addition, they had met with the major broadcasters to show them the content of the ads so they were more able to make a judgement on their suitability for post-9 pm transmission.  In response to complainants who had questioned the suitability of the ad in breaks during the ITV programme "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here," they said the ads were placed no earlier than the 9.20 pm break.  They said the audience breakdown showed the programme had a relatively small proportion of children watching.  They said they had avoided scheduling the ads in programmes where they believed the likelihood of children watching in large numbers, even after 9 pm, was high, such as The X Factor Results Show.  They said they believed they had gone beyond what was expected of them in that respect because parents that allowed children to watch TV after 9 pm did so in the knowledge that the content might not be suitable for them.

Clearcast said they had approved the ads on the condition that they should be transmitted after 9 pm only to reduce the likelihood of children seeing them because of the scenes involving violence and drug use.

3. Barnardo's said CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.4 (Personal distress) stated that ads should not contain material that was likely to cause serious distress to significant numbers of viewers "without good reason." Barnardo's recognised that, for survivors of domestic abuse, any mention was likely to evoke a personal reaction.  Barnardo's, however, believed that could be a result of the nature of the subject matter rather than the ads themselves.  They believed it was vital that the British public understood the cycle of abuse, deprivation and misery that many children were trapped in and also to understand that Barnardo's intervention could break that cycle.

Clearcast said they believed the content of the ads was challenging but not gratuitous and that it was relevant to this kind of charity advertising.

BBH regretted the distress caused to viewers who had personal experience of abuse themselves. They emphasised that neither BBH nor Barnardo's had intended to cause distress to them but rather to show help was available to people in that situation.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that the ads used imagery which many viewers might find shocking, particularly the repetitive and speeded-up sound and visual effects of the girl being hit by her father. We did not doubt that the offence described by many of the complainants was deeply felt.  However, we considered that the purpose and aim of the ads to raise awareness of domestic child abuse and how a negative cycle was often repeated by the victims of that abuse was likely to justify for most viewers the shocking experience of watching it.

Although the scenes of violence might be unacceptable in other advertising we noted that the TV Code contained provision for charity ads to contain scenes that might otherwise be unacceptable to viewers.  Whilst we do not consider that advertisers are entitled to use any kind of shocking imagery provided it has a charitable aim, we concluded that the need to illustrate such a serious issue in a shocking way would be seen by most viewers of these ads as justifying the approach Barnardos used.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 6.2 (Violence and cruelty) but did not find them in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the restriction Clearcast had placed on the ads to limit their transmission to after 9 pm only.  We also noted the additional steps Barnardos had taken to schedule the ads away from post-9 pm programmes that might attract a relatively or absolutely large child audience.  We considered the restriction was adequate in this instance and that further restriction was not justified.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.4.1 (Mental harm - children), 7.4.6 (Distress - children), 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of TV Advertisements rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children) but did not find them in breach.

3. Not upheld

We considered that ads should not, without good reason, contain material which was likely to cause serious distress to significant number of viewers.  We acknowledged that the distress experienced by victims of abuse who had seen the ads was clearly deeply felt.  We noted, however, that the scene involving the violence, although shocking to watch, showed the violence as unacceptable behaviour and did not encourage or condone it.  While we sympathised deeply with the distress caused, we concluded that the aim of the ads justified the use of such strong imagery.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 6.4 (Personal distress) but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)