Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The CAP Code contains specific requirements for targeting children and young people. For example, marketers of alcoholic drinks or gambling products should take special care and marcoms for diets should not appeal particularly to those under 18 (see below). Section 5 explains what marketers can and cannot do when addressing or targeting children.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), has been in force since May 2008, it exists to help protect consumers, including children, from unfair trading practices and was incorporated into the CAP Code.
Rule 5.4.2 states “Marketing communications addressed to or targeted at children must not make a direct exhortation to children to buy an advertised productor persuade their parents or other adults to buy an advertised product for them.” In other words, marketers should not exhort children to buy the advertised product.
Section 5 also sets out that marcoms featuring children should not encourage irresponsible or dangerous practices (See ‘Children and Safety’) and marketers should ensure that they do not use unsuitable, offensive or distressing material. Marketers should be aware that Dr Tanya Byron published a report that claimed to look at the risks to children from exposure to potentially harmful or unsuitable material on the Internet and in video games. Although it comments on matters outside of non-broadcast advertising, the Byron Report raises concerns about violent or sexual content seen by youngsters. Society is concerned about ads that glorify, trivialise or normalise violence and the ASA has upheld many complaints about ads accused of being either too violent or too sexual to be seen by children. All marketers should be mindful of the impact their ad might have on those who see it but those advertising violent or sexy films, games or books might have to take extra care (See ‘Video games and films’).
One way to help minimise the risk of unsuitable images and claims being seen by children is to target carefully where ads are going to appear. The ASA has upheld complaints about visuals that have appeared in untargeted or loosely targeted media, the most obvious example being posters (Universal Pictures (UK) Ltd, 3 September 2008; Eidos Interactive Ltd, 9 April 2008; Department of Health, 16 May 2007, complaint 1; Australian Tourist Board, 28 March 2007; The Gas Showroom Ltd, 30 August 2006, and Ann Summers Ltd, 21 April 2004). Marketers should be aware that posters, especially those outside or close to schools, might be considered unsuitable, offensive or distressing and should, wherever possible, avoid unsuitable poster sites (Department of Health, 16 May 2007). Of course, the fact that they will be seen by youngsters does not necessarily mean the ASA will deem posters unacceptable but marketers should be aware that they risk complaint and ASA action if they advertise on posters in preference to carefully targeted media that try to exclude children (ITV Network Ltd, 30 January 2008; Entertainment Film Distributors Ltd, 21 November 2007; Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Ltd, 17 October 2007; Vodafone UK Ltd, 10 October 2007; Take Two Interactive Software Europe Ltd, 5 September 2007; Premier Exhibitions, 5 July 2006, and XFM, 14 June 2006).
Marketers should note the ASA has upheld complaints about the targeting (or lack of) of unsolicited direct mailings (The M&D Group, 19 March 2003), brochures (Battersea Arts Centre, 4 October 2006) and TV listings magazines (Red Circle Technologies Ltd, 17 December 2008). Although the latter ad came with the Daily Star, which was read predominantly by men with an average age of 39 years, the ASA noted that supplements, particularly TV listings, did not necessarily share the same reader profile. Because the images were overtly sexual, and some were graphic, the ASA concluded that the ad was unsuitable for publications that could be seen by children, especially if it appeared on the back cover.
The ASA has also upheld complaints about mailings that unintentionally exposed children to unacceptable claims or images (Save the Children Fund, 11 October 2006). Here, the ASA ruled that a claim on the envelope “If you have brown eyes, you’re more likely to die young” could alarm and distress children who did not understand the message.
The ASA has also upheld complaints against marketers who have explicitly targeted children, for example the Beano (THQ International, 11 February 2004), Term Time, a free children’s magazine (Hillside Animal Sanctuary, 7July 2004) and leaflets given to children outside schools (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 5 September 2001). Conversely, the ASA considered that an ad featuring a story of animal abuse in a magazine intended for 7 to 11 year-olds was unlikely to cause undue distress because the accompanying picture was of a healthy-looking pony and the language used was no more graphic than in a news report (Bransby Home of Rest for Horses, 4 April 2007).
Assessing whether ads online are likely to be acceptable is a little more difficult. An internet banner ad that appeared on Faceparty.com and claimed “Clothes that help you get laid” was considered irresponsible because it was likely to be seen by those under 16 (Blue Skin, 28 June 2006).
Complaints about other internet ads have not been upheld because the advertiser has been able to satisfy the ASA that the ads have not been placed on or around sites visited by children or because parental permission has been needed (Lions Gate UK Ltd, 13 February 2008; Sony Pictures Releasing UK, 10 October 2007; Sony Computer Entertainment UK Ltd, 8 August 2007; Department of Health,16 May 2007, and Euro Gaming Ltd, 25 July 2007). In 2006, the ASA received a complaint about a rolling banner ad, for a children’s welfare charity, on Hotmail and MSN instant-messenger contact windows. It carried the claim “I love slipping into bed. With my daughter. And you can’t stop me”. Because the ad was not unduly graphic and the language was relevant to the subject matter, the ASA concluded that the ad would not harm, offend or distress children.
Marketers, especially those of products that could be dangerous if misused by children, should take care either to advertise in a way that does not appeal to or target children or to ensure children do not obtain the product. In 1999, the ASA ruled against an advertiser that made inadequate checks to ensure air pistols, sporting machine guns and laser pointers were not distributed to those under 18 (Rexancrown, July 1999). Conversely, in 2003, the ASA rejected a complaint that a mail order newspaper ad irresponsibly offered a scythe that could be ordered by children (Robert Guy Services Ltd, 1 October 2003).
Marketing communications for alcoholic drinks, sales promotions, charities, medicines, slimming regimes, gambling (betting and gaming) (Cashcade Ltd, 12 July 2006) and rolling papers and filters should not be addressed to those under 18 years old (Rules 8.4, 8.8, 8.33.9, 12.16, 13.3, 16.3.12, 16.3.13, and 21.5). Lottery marcoms should not be directed at under 16s (17.14) The ASA recently considered whether a mailing for a tenpin bowling leisure centre was irresponsible because it promoted alcohol to a 17-year-old (Tenpin Ltd, 22 October 2008). The bowling centre offered birthday packages that featured “… bottle(s) of booze”, bubbly and even free “Corky’s” shots. The advertiser said it had targeted women aged 18 to 24 years and sent the mailings to 17 year olds only if they were due to turn 18 within 4 weeks of receiving the mailing. The ASA nevertheless decided that the mailing was unacceptable (Rule 8.4) because it was directed at people under 18.
Although the Code defines a child as anyone under 16, we advise marketers to check the reader profiles of media to satisfy themselves that they are not unwittingly targeting the wrong age groups. For example, alcohol should not be advertised in media for which more than 25% of its audience is less than 18 years of age. In 2006, the ASA challenged whether Zoo magazine was suitable for an alcohol promotion. The publisher gave the ASA the latest National Readership Survey figures for the magazine; they showed that only 17% of Zoo’s readers were under 18 years old (EMAP Elan Ltd, 6 September 2006).
Last modified : 01 September 2010