Commercial congestion: Ad Standards roundup September 2024

Whenever a car is depicted in advertising material, it is scrutinised against various codes of conduct to ensure the health and safety of consumers who may directly or indirectly engage with the products or services being promoted. In Australia, the AANA Code of Ethics and FCAI Code of Conduct help advertisers self-regulate marketing material that features cars and other vehicles. As these conveyances have the potential to cause serious damage to people and the environment, it is vital to portray safe usage.

However, advertisers will often attempt to push the limits of responsible advertising, or perhaps seemingly obliviously flout regulation. Buckle up for four recent ads depicting vehicles that had public complaints upheld by the Ad Standards Community Panel.

Fat Boy Bikes

The Ad: Electric bicycle (aka eBike) company Fat Boy Bikes made a social media post offering prizes to winners of their ​“Wheelie Challenge…send or tag us and will give the winners a free merch pack. Points awarded for speed, style and distance covered. [Shaka hand emoji]”

The Complaint: The post encouraged unsafe behaviour to promote the company’s products.

The Advertiser’s Response: None given

The Ad Board’s Decision: Complaint upheld – breached AANA Code of Ethics Section 2.6: ​“Advertising shall not depict material contrary to Prevailing Community Standards on health and safety.” The advertiser removed the post.

Why the Ad Board Came to that Decision: The accompanying image on the post showed a rider popping a wheelie on a public road, a behaviour deemed to be risky and it possibly could encourage young people to imitate.

Read the full report here.

Mercedes-Benz

The Ad: YouTube ad showing Formula 1 driver George Russell driving a Mercedes-Benz car at speed. Visual effects include the car materialising and morphing out of thin air.

The Complaint: Dangerous driving like speeding and drifting depicted, thus using illegal activity to advertise.

The Advertiser’s Response: The complaint was directed to Mercedes-Benz Australia/​Pacific Pty Ltd, who said the ad may have actually been authorised by Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd, a separate and independent legal entity and business. Despite this, Mercedes-Benz Australia/​Pacific Pty Ltd reviewed the complaint and said it did not contravene the FCAI Code of Conduct. They said this was largely due to the ad’s disclaimer that the car was being driven on a closed track by a professional driver. The possibility was also raised that the ad wasn’t even promoting a car but financial services instead.

The Ad Board’s Decision: Upheld – breached FCAI Code of Conduct Clause 2(a): Unsafe Driving. The advertisement was discontinued.

Why the Ad Board Came to that Decision: Components of the driving depicted in the ad, including the image of a racing helmet, a corner being taken at high speed and the driver making a shushing gesture, could be considered as behaviour that could lead to dangerous driving if copied on public roads.

Read the full report here.

Sportsbet

The Ad: Online betting company Sportsbet ran a television commercial depicting people on a golf course driving golf carts, interspersed with shots of them using their mobile phones to access the Sportsbet app.

The Complaint: Dangerous use of a motor vehicle by encouraging people to use their phones while driving.

The Advertiser’s Response: The commercial does not actually depict mobile phone use while driving; it is being used in the passenger seat.

The Ad Board’s Decision: Complaint upheld – breached AANA Code of Ethics Section 2.6 and Wagering Code Section 2.8: ​“Advertising or Marketing Communication for a Wagering Product or Service must not portray, condone or encourage excessive participation in wagering activities.” The ad was discontinued, but the advertiser appealed for an independent review by an external legal expert appointed by Ad Standards, who also found the commercial breached the same sections. The complaint was ultimately upheld.

Why the Ad Board Came to that Decision: Despite the golf cart not being driven on public roads, advertisers still needed to take care to depict any vehicle use in a safe way. The ad gives off the impression that the driver/​s are using phones while driving. Additionally, the advertiser is subject to the Wagering Code because a gambling product is being advertised, which the Ad Standards Community Panel considered the ad to be encouraging excessive participation in gambling.

Read the full report here.

Supercheap Auto

The Ad: Auto parts and accessories retailer Supercheap Auto ran a television commercial showing high performance vehicles racing around a holiday trailer park. Scenes include drifting, car jumps and a vehicle crashing through a billboard.

The Complaint: Dangerous driving in close proximity to people.

The Advertiser’s Response: The highly fantastical and nonsensical scenario is clearly fictional and not a realistic portrayal of driving, plus the ad is clearly marked as being filmed under controlled conditions with professional drivers. A series of behind the scenes content was also released to show the degree of training and care taken to ensure the driving was choreographed.

The Ad Board’s Decision: Complaint upheld – breached AANA Code of Ethics Section 2.6. Advertiser to update the creative.

Why the Ad Board Came to that Decision: While the scenario itself was whimsical, the setting of a holiday park and unprotected bystanders was realistic. Copycat behaviour could result in dangerous consequences.

Read the full report here.

“ Maintaining the line between creativity and responsibility is critical. Companies must be careful to avoid promoting careless and reckless driving, even in whimsical contexts. While such marketing can attract consumers’ attention, copycat behaviour could result in dangerous consequences, not just for the consumers but also for the company itself.”

Alana Caiafa, Lawyer at Plexus