A dog-training school accused of broadcasting an ad which it was claimed “belittled, mocked” and painted men as “idiots” has fallen foul of the advertising watchdog.
The latest raft of complaints published by the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland also found that Nissan Ireland, the VHI and Aer Lingus had run ads which were misleading.
A radio ad for the King of Paws Dog Training Academy featured a telephone conversation between a male employee and a female customer making an enquiry.
The full script read as follows:
"King of Paws: Hello King of Paws Dog Training Academy.
Customer: Are you able to help my Oscar behave better?
King of Paws: Of course madam. We are Ireland's largest training centre.
Customer: Right. Can I book Oscar in?
King of Paws: And what breed of dog is Oscar?
Customer: He's not a dog. He's my husband.
The ASAI received two complaints, both from men.
One said he considered “the advertisement to be part of a trend where men are belittled, mocked, painted as idiots and in this case compared to dogs”.
He expressed the opinion that “the advertisement was sexist, centred around discrimination on gender which was not permitted under Irish law”.
A second complainant concurred with the first man and added that he “did not want his children to have to listen to this type of advertising”.
The advertisers acknowledged receipt of ASAI’s correspondence and said the matter would be discussed at their next marketing planning meeting, but no further communication was received from King of Paws which means it was automatically found to be in breach of the rules.
A promotional spot by Nissan Ireland during Love/Hate’ offered viewers the chance to win a new Nissan Juke. The advertisement in conjunction with the competition featured a lone yellow Nissan Juke, being driven by a young man at high speed through a brightly lit cityscape at night time. The young man was accompanied by a female passenger.
The complainant said that she considered the advertising to be irresponsible in its portrayal of a young couple driving through the city, at high speed, in a sports car. She said the fact that the advertisement featured directly after Love/Hate “made it appear to be exciting, sexy and cool to drive at high speed and she considered the advertisers were irresponsible in promoting speeding, at a time when many young men were dying on our roads.”
Nissan said the Juke was “a crossover car and the vehicle featured in the advertisement was a 1.5 diesel, not a sports car”.
They said the car in question was driven through a computer generated cityscape, not a real city and no other vehicles had featured in the advertising. They said there had been no indication of speed as the computer generated background fell away rather than the car moving.
The ASAI consulted with the Road Safety Authority and the Complaints Committee accepted that while it had not been the intention of Nissan "to condone unsafe driving practices, and that while the cityscape featured had been computer generated, it was inappropriate to show any vehicle being driven in a manner that created the impression of speed except in the context of promoting safety."
A VHI ad which advertises Homecare as being “included in all hospital plans” was in breach because in some parts of the State Homecare is unavailable.
Aer Lingus, meanwhile, were rapped over the knuckles over an ad on the Aer Lingus UK homepage which included a “Web Offers” section listing several destinations from London including “Flights from London Gatwick to Belfast”.
A complainant viewed an offer of an outward journey from London Gatwick to Belfast City at £29.18 and the return journey at £21.79. He wished to book at this rate so he clicked the ‘Book Now’ button and selected the return flight. The advertised cheapest fares were not available and higher prices were quoted in his fare summary. As the ‘cheapest fares’ were not available to him he considered that the advertising was misleading.
In response, Aer Lingus said all fares were advertised on an each way basis including taxes and charges and all fares are subject to terms, conditions and availability.
The ASAI Complaints Committee said the offer page had given the complainant an expectation of the availability of the fares at a particular price.
“In view of the fact that the fares were then not available to the complainant and the advertiser had not provided any substantiation that the fares had been available, the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of the Code.”
