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.
Marketers must ensure that they do not depict graffiti, use graffiti-like art or show people defacing property in a way that could encourage anyone to break the law or behave in an anti-social manner (Rules 1.3, 1.10 and 4.4). Ads featuring graffiti have generated complaints that they encourage the young or immature to deface private and public property but so far the ASA has taken a liberal view. Marketers should bear in mind, however, that the public’s and ASA’s tolerance to those types of ads could easily change over time.
The ASA is unlikely to consider that heavily stylised and artistic graffiti will encourage vandalism. In 2004, Chrysler Jeep ran a national press ad showing a car in front of a very large (approx 6 metres squared) section of surreal graffiti featuring notes and coins (which seemed to be coming from the exhaust of the vehicle) to advertise a cash-back offer. Given the scale and nature of the graffiti in question, the ASA considered that the image was unlikely to be emulated and rejected complaints that the ad would encourage vandalism.
Also in 2004, Sony UK ran a regional press ad showing a graffiti artist at work producing an abstract ‘street-art’ style image on the side of a building while listening to the advertised walkman. Text in the ad described the depicted man as an “artist”. Again, the ASA considered the image would not encourage emulation and the fact that the depicted man was a commissioned artist further distanced the ad from criminal activity. (As an aside, marketers should take legal advice before reproducing in ads the ‘graffiti’ art of artists such as Banksy).
Ads featuring less sophisticated forms of graffiti have also been the subject of complaints made to the ASA. In 2004, Bulldog Broadband ran a poster featuring a 70mph road sign that had a “1” spray-painted in front of it to read “170” to advertise the speed of their service. Similarly, in 2005, Channel 4 ran a poster for the television programme ‘Jamie’s School Dinners’ featuring a picture of Jamie Oliver that looked as if it had been defaced, presumably by the children featured in the programme (glasses and a moustache were drawn on the picture, as well as a pair of breasts and the words “This bloke can’t cook”). In both instances, the ASA noted the graffiti in question was directly relevant to the products being advertised and concluded that the use of graffiti as a visual device was acceptable. Negative references to graffiti are also likely to be acceptable.
Breaches of the Code are more likely for instances of graffiti that have no relevance to the advertised product. Also, although depicting an artist at work is acceptable, images that could be interpreted as showing people breaking the law should be avoided.
In 2005, the ASA upheld complaints about an ad in Viz magazine for the satirical popular music group Goldie Looking Chain. It depicted the group in heavily graffiti-ed surroundings; several of the members were holding aerosol cans and one seemed to be sniffing from a can. The ASA considered the ad irresponsible in the context of a product that was likely to appeal to children (Atlantic Records, 9 March 2005).
Last modified : 29 July 2010