RE: GT86: banned!
Discussion
Here's a thought.
I bet there's something in the ASA code about sexism in adverts. I bet it's set down somewhere that implying gender stereotyping or inferiority is beyond the pale.
As far as the ASA will be concerned, they'll probably only really consider it when it's seen to be anti-female.
Time for this to end. If the same thinking was applied to men a whole avalanche of ads would be ruled illegal.
And I bet the wording is ambiguous enough to be interpreted that way.
I bet there's something in the ASA code about sexism in adverts. I bet it's set down somewhere that implying gender stereotyping or inferiority is beyond the pale.
As far as the ASA will be concerned, they'll probably only really consider it when it's seen to be anti-female.
Time for this to end. If the same thinking was applied to men a whole avalanche of ads would be ruled illegal.
And I bet the wording is ambiguous enough to be interpreted that way.
You mean that there are adverts which portray men as generally stupid and useless? Surely not, such a thing could not be allowed! 
You might find complaining unproductive, though:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2009/5...
You might find complaining unproductive, though:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2009/5...
Edited by otolith on Monday 19th November 19:58
Saw a GT86 in 'look at me, I'm white!' at my local supermarket and to be honest it looked like a Hyundai. Nothing to even make me look twice and knowing it was so woefully underpowered just made it worse - what kind of numpty would buy that car new. The ASA were right to ban that advert, its totally misleading of what the car actually is. It doesn't break the rules at all and looks more conservative than the old Celica.
RevolveR said:
Saw a GT86 in 'look at me, I'm white!' at my local supermarket and to be honest it looked like a Hyundai. Nothing to even make me look twice and knowing it was so woefully underpowered just made it worse - what kind of numpty would buy that car new. The ASA were right to ban that advert, its totally misleading of what the car actually is. It doesn't break the rules at all and looks more conservative than the old Celica.
Have you driven one?
otolith said:
You mean that there are adverts which portray men as generally stupid and useless? Surely not, such a thing could not be allowed!
You might find complaining unproductive, though:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2009/5...
Wait a sec.You might find complaining unproductive, though:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2009/5...
Edited by otolith on Monday 19th November 19:58
That Homepride ad - which is one of the most offensive things I've ever seen on TV - was let off with no reference to the rules because, and I quote:
ASA said:
was likely to be seen by the majority of viewers as light hearted and comical. The mans behaviour in particular and the "disclaimer" at the end of the ad were clearly intended to be over the top and humorous and both characters childlike behaviour appeared incredulous.
Well I consider a car advert that's blatantly made to look like a computer game in which the car is seen escaping from equally virtual police to be 'light hearted'. I also consider it to be 'intended to be over the top and humourous'.There is something very, very odd about the way cars are treated by officialdom, especially London-based, inevitably non-driving 'metropolitan elite' officialdom.
Compare this to the attendance at this weekend's NEC Classic Motor Show. Sixty thousand. That's ten thousand up on last year and the largest attendance ever. That is this year, here and now, for a show dedicated to cars focusing entirely on how they look, how they drive, and how they can be modified for speed and repaired at home.
To say that the ASA represents the attitude of the general public towards cars and driving is laughable.
Kozy said:
My complaint sent to the ASA:
ts" to the end. Thought I'd keep it mature though.
Got a reply, part generic, part 'they might have actually read it', mostly the former though:Kozy said:
I would like to question the ASA’s standards regarding the advertisement of cars following your ruling on Toyota’s advert for the GT86.
While I appreciate that the extended cinema and online advert clearly breaches the ASA standards for vehicle advertisement, I would like to question the ASA on how exactly these standards are written.
To quote some sections of your standards on car advertisement:
“Television ads must not:
· demonstrate power, acceleration, handling characteristics etc except in a clear context of safety (but must not imply excitement or competitiveness).
· suggest fast driving is exhilarating nor portray driving as if it were a competitive sport.
· suggest that driving safely or cautiously is staid or boring.
· suggest that a vehicle is preferred because of its power or speed.”
Are these rules placed on the advertisement of cars set in house by the ASA, or does the ASA answer to a higher authority on this matter?
I believe this kind of stringent regulation is what is strangling the UK motorsport industry as car manufacturers are effectively banned from making any links between their racing efforts and their road cars. Without being able to emphasize these links, there is little return on investment for manufacturers to enter into competitive motorsport and the sports slowly decline as a result. This is clearly evident in the WRC with the departure of the majority of manufacturer backed teams after they deemed the sport to be an unnecessary expenditure. That was their marketing, and your regulations effectively banned it, as a result a sport and it’s supporting industries is adversely affected. All of this because some impressionable delinquent may take it upon themselves to try and re-enact their favourite driver’s manoeuvres on the road? This pandering to the lowest common denominator is all too common in the UK in all aspects of life, the public are becoming acutely aware and little weary of it.
I would ask that the ASA review their regulations on car advertisements to allow manufacturers a little more freedom in their marketing, to allow them to profit again from their endeavours in competitive motorsport and stop a great British industry fading into the history books. Some cars, however much the ASA might disapprove, ARE predominately about the performance, handling, enjoyment or engineering derived from the competitive arena and should be able to link to those without being penalised.
Reckless driving does not need to be condoned to achieve this end, but at present acceptable car adverts appear to be nothing more than selling a suggested lifestyle that might accompany the car, with little to no detail on the car itself.
If you continue to regulate in this way then please allow me to congratulate you on adding a few more nails into the coffin of the UK motorsport industry, the ensuing loss of jobs and reduced financial contribution to an already seriously fledging UK economy.
Considered adding "you feckless tWhile I appreciate that the extended cinema and online advert clearly breaches the ASA standards for vehicle advertisement, I would like to question the ASA on how exactly these standards are written.
To quote some sections of your standards on car advertisement:
“Television ads must not:
· demonstrate power, acceleration, handling characteristics etc except in a clear context of safety (but must not imply excitement or competitiveness).
· suggest fast driving is exhilarating nor portray driving as if it were a competitive sport.
· suggest that driving safely or cautiously is staid or boring.
· suggest that a vehicle is preferred because of its power or speed.”
Are these rules placed on the advertisement of cars set in house by the ASA, or does the ASA answer to a higher authority on this matter?
I believe this kind of stringent regulation is what is strangling the UK motorsport industry as car manufacturers are effectively banned from making any links between their racing efforts and their road cars. Without being able to emphasize these links, there is little return on investment for manufacturers to enter into competitive motorsport and the sports slowly decline as a result. This is clearly evident in the WRC with the departure of the majority of manufacturer backed teams after they deemed the sport to be an unnecessary expenditure. That was their marketing, and your regulations effectively banned it, as a result a sport and it’s supporting industries is adversely affected. All of this because some impressionable delinquent may take it upon themselves to try and re-enact their favourite driver’s manoeuvres on the road? This pandering to the lowest common denominator is all too common in the UK in all aspects of life, the public are becoming acutely aware and little weary of it.
I would ask that the ASA review their regulations on car advertisements to allow manufacturers a little more freedom in their marketing, to allow them to profit again from their endeavours in competitive motorsport and stop a great British industry fading into the history books. Some cars, however much the ASA might disapprove, ARE predominately about the performance, handling, enjoyment or engineering derived from the competitive arena and should be able to link to those without being penalised.
Reckless driving does not need to be condoned to achieve this end, but at present acceptable car adverts appear to be nothing more than selling a suggested lifestyle that might accompany the car, with little to no detail on the car itself.
If you continue to regulate in this way then please allow me to congratulate you on adding a few more nails into the coffin of the UK motorsport industry, the ensuing loss of jobs and reduced financial contribution to an already seriously fledging UK economy.
ts" to the end. Thought I'd keep it mature though.ASA-HOLES said:
Dear Mr Kozy
Thank you for your email, your feedback to us is appreciated.
The Advertising Codes are written and maintained by the Committee of Advertising Practice, which is made up of representatives of advertisers, agencies, media owners and other industry groups, all of which are committed to upholding the highest standards in non-broadcast and broadcast advertising. The Codes are deliberately strict and are designed to ensure ads do not contain anything likely that is likely to mislead, harm or offend and are prepared in a socially responsible way. The rules of motoring reflect these principles.
The ASA’s role is to assess whether or not ads breach the Advertising Codes, and when making judgements on whether an ad is likely to be harmful, inappropriate or irresponsible, there will inevitably be times when people do not agree with our rulings.
In assessing the Toyota ad, the ASA Council understood that Toyota had designed the ad to emphasise the unique driving experience of the car rather than the speeds it could achieve; that the central character was always shown to be in total control of the car and did not engage in any dangerous driving. Similarly, they understood that Toyota believed the ad showed the authorities attempting to prevent the character from having an authentic driving experience rather than preventing him from driving in a dangerous way. However, they considered there were a number of scenes which depicted the character driving at speed and in a reckless manner, as shown by the reactions of bystanders as he drove past them, and the car chase scenes as the driver dodged, swerved and overtook various other drivers and obstacles.
In addition to the highly stylised nature of the ad, it was judged that the ad glamorised the reckless manner in which the car was driven, as well as portraying speed, and the way the car could be handled in a manner that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly. Therefore the ad was judged to be irresponsible and condoned dangerous driving. If you haven’t already done so you can read the full ruling here.
I appreciate that you may not agree with the Council’s ruling, but as you are not party to the original complaint, I cannot enter into extensive correspondence with you about this case.
Best regards
Priscilla Owusu
Thank you for your email, your feedback to us is appreciated.
The Advertising Codes are written and maintained by the Committee of Advertising Practice, which is made up of representatives of advertisers, agencies, media owners and other industry groups, all of which are committed to upholding the highest standards in non-broadcast and broadcast advertising. The Codes are deliberately strict and are designed to ensure ads do not contain anything likely that is likely to mislead, harm or offend and are prepared in a socially responsible way. The rules of motoring reflect these principles.
The ASA’s role is to assess whether or not ads breach the Advertising Codes, and when making judgements on whether an ad is likely to be harmful, inappropriate or irresponsible, there will inevitably be times when people do not agree with our rulings.
In assessing the Toyota ad, the ASA Council understood that Toyota had designed the ad to emphasise the unique driving experience of the car rather than the speeds it could achieve; that the central character was always shown to be in total control of the car and did not engage in any dangerous driving. Similarly, they understood that Toyota believed the ad showed the authorities attempting to prevent the character from having an authentic driving experience rather than preventing him from driving in a dangerous way. However, they considered there were a number of scenes which depicted the character driving at speed and in a reckless manner, as shown by the reactions of bystanders as he drove past them, and the car chase scenes as the driver dodged, swerved and overtook various other drivers and obstacles.
In addition to the highly stylised nature of the ad, it was judged that the ad glamorised the reckless manner in which the car was driven, as well as portraying speed, and the way the car could be handled in a manner that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly. Therefore the ad was judged to be irresponsible and condoned dangerous driving. If you haven’t already done so you can read the full ruling here.
I appreciate that you may not agree with the Council’s ruling, but as you are not party to the original complaint, I cannot enter into extensive correspondence with you about this case.
Best regards
Priscilla Owusu
The rules say you can't refer to speeds over 70mph or "demonstrate power, acceleration, handling characteristics etc except in a clear context of safety. Any references to such characteristics must not imply excitement or competitiveness."
what if a small child were to step out just off of the apex whilst doing exactly 60mph on a gorgeous alpine pass? would that be acceptable?
The world is just too full of pathetic little joy sucking arse holes who think that anyone who isnt just sitting at 40 in their diesel passats ruining perfectly good corners for those of us with a soul, is an 'idiot' and should be banned from exiting their house, as a rebellious 19 year old BMW driver I feel asthough it's my duty to irritate the hell out of such people
what if a small child were to step out just off of the apex whilst doing exactly 60mph on a gorgeous alpine pass? would that be acceptable?
The world is just too full of pathetic little joy sucking arse holes who think that anyone who isnt just sitting at 40 in their diesel passats ruining perfectly good corners for those of us with a soul, is an 'idiot' and should be banned from exiting their house, as a rebellious 19 year old BMW driver I feel asthough it's my duty to irritate the hell out of such people
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff