Red Bull ad: SA youth not so ‘liberal’

An interesting presser popped up in my mail box today regards the controversial Red Bull Jesus ad, suggesting that SA youth are not as liberal in their views as advertisers and marketers generally assume.

Of course, it’s based on the response of a single survey which doesn’t represent the country’s youth market … but it still offers good insight into how youngsters respond to advertising campaigns. And it shows the attitudes and sensitivities of young South Africans are not always what we would expect. It’s something all of us, but particularly advertisers and marketers, should bear in mind.

“SA youth agree with Red Bull Ad retraction

A survey by Pondering Panda, a consumer insights company specialising in fast turnaround research, suggests that South African youths are surprisingly not as tolerant as one would expect. Following the retraction of a Red Bull advert from television networks in South Africa depicting Jesus walking on water; the company polled users of Mxit, Africa’s biggest social network, to gauge their reaction.

The poll posed the question: “Do you think it was right for the Advertising Standards Association (ASA) to remove the advert from TV networks?”

Of the 1,661 users who responded to the poll in the first day the poll was created, 59% of users felt that retracting the Red Bull advert was the right thing to do. 27% said the advert should have been allowed to continue and 14% had no strong opinion on the advert.

The contentious advert suggests that it was the Red Bull energy drink which caused Jesus to walk on water.

Shirley Wakefield, CEO of Pondering Panda, commented saying, “It is fascinating that almost 60% of the youth market surveyed agreed with the decision to retract the advert. There is a common belief that the youth market hold more liberal views and advertisers perhaps need to take note of these unexpected results.”

To be fair to Red Bull, it pulled the ad off air before the ASA made an approach following consumer complaints. The ad was flighted on TV only once before complaints led it to make the decision to discontinue the ad.

The ASA has since ruled on the matter.  In a nutshell, it ruled in favour of the complainants’ view that the ad was offensive to Christians and imposed a sanction on Red Bull. But the sanction is suspended for six months, with conditions. If you’re interested in the ins and outs of the ASA’s decision, see below for full ruling.

Red Bull / F Meredith & Others / 19821

Ruling of the : ASA Directorate

In the matter between:

FRANCESCA MEREDITH FRANCOIS GROBLER ANDREA REINECKE RICHARDT VENTER RHONDA CROUSE IAN KITNEY SARAH M M LOMBARD L D CARIS IAN WILLIAM FORSTER LINDA ROBINSON MIQUETTE CAALSEN MARCELLE SCHLEBUSCH MARK RUSSELL GUY DENNISON

MERLE TOWNSEND MATTHY Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)

Red Bull Holdings South Africa (Pty) Ltd Respondent

Consumer complaints were lodged against a Red Bull television commercial promoting its Red Bull energy drink. The commercial was flighted, inter alia, on MNet and e.tv on Monday, 12 March 2012.

The animated commercial depicts Jesus fishing from a small boat with two other bearded, unnamed characters. Jesus comments that he is bored, steps out of the boat and starts walking on water. The one character states “Jesus! Wait there … wow, how did you do that?” (when he sees Jesus walking on water). Jesus asks “What do you mean?” The man refers to “… the walking on water thing?”, to which the other character states “uh, I believe he drank a Red Bull my china … gives him wings, not so?”. Jesus then clarifies “Not at all, it’s got nothing to do with Red Bull”, to which the second character shouts “Mazel tov! It’s a miracle!” Jesus then explains that its “No miracle” and that he “just need[s] to know where [he] placed the stones”.

As he says this, stones are seen protruding from the water and Jesus is shown hopping over them. He nearly slips on one and exclaims “Jesus!”

COMPLAINTS

The complainant submitted, in essence, that:

The commercial is offensive as it makes a mockery of Jesus Christ by portraying Him in a blasphemous manner. Peripheral arguments to the allegation of offence relate to the fact that the commercial implies that the miracle of Jesus walking on water was all a sham.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is alive and sitting at the right hand of God and as such His express permission should have been obtained before being featured in the commercial (in accordance with certain provisions of the Code).

The advertiser should apologise publicly and should be fined as well to indicate the level of offence caused.

Creates a bad example for children.

Its misleading as it creates an impression that the product existed during the time that Jesus Christ lived.

RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE In light of the complaints the following clauses of the Code were considered

relevant:

. Section II, Clause 1 – Offensive advertising

. Section II, Clause 4.2.1 – Misleading claims

. Section II, Clause 11 – Protection of privacy and exploitation of the individual

. Section II, Clause 14 – Children

. Procedural Guide, Clause 14 – Sanctions

RESPONSE

The respondent submitted, inter alia, that:

Even prior to receiving any communication from the ASA, it made the unilateral decision to cease running the commercial across all television and online mediums as a result of complaints received. The commercial was only flighted for one night and will not air again.

While it does not consider to have breached the Code (for the reasons below), it respects the views and opinions of the public and it does not intend causing offence to the groups that complained.

Its commercials are at all times animated and created for their humour and are not intended to be taken seriously or to cause offence. This is not unlike other cartoon shows (for example The Simpsons) where material is not intended to be taken literally.

The commercial does not mislead the consumer with respect to the product.

The use of the cartoon medium communicates to the viewer that this commercial is not intended to depict a real life scenario.

It does not direct its marketing to children. The commercial was aired in the evening. In addition, as stated on the product itself, it is not made to be consumed by children. Given the light-hearted nature of the commercial, the respondent does not believe it to be taken seriously.

It does do not see any scope for consideration of sanctions as it has already withdrawn the commercial and undertaken not to air it again in future. Furthermore, it apologises to those members of the public for any offence caused which was wholly unintended.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING

The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by all the parties.

Voluntary undertaking

In terms of the Code and a long-standing principle held in previous rulings, the Directorate has discretion in terms of deciding whether or not an unequivocal undertaking to remove or amend the advertising complained of is an adequate resolution to the matter. When such undertakings are accepted (which is often the case), it will be done because the undertaking addresses the concerns raised in the complaint/s.

Over the years, however, there have been instances where the Directorate did not believe a mere withdrawal of the advertising was sufficient. This will usually be in instances where, for example, the undertaking is merely given in an attempt to avoid sanctions, or where the proposed amendments would not adequately address the concerns (refer Mavericks / FM Boulle and Another /

11224 (4 August 2008) for example).

In addition to this, if the Directorate were satisfied that a respondent should reasonably have known its advertising was problematic / deceptive / offensive and still persisted with it, this could be seen as deliberate intent for which a mere withdrawal would not necessarily be adequate.

For the reasons set out more fully below, the Directorate is not satisfied that the withdrawal of the commercial is sufficient and adequately addresses the concerns raised. The respondent’s undertaking is therefore not accepted as a final resolution.

Merits

The ASA acknowledges that South Africa is a multi-cultural society and recognizes that it is important to ensure that all religious faiths and beliefs, no matter how large or small the communities that practice them, are treated with the same consideration and respect. A guiding principle has always been that advertising that attacks, ridicules or belittles a basic tenet of any belief would be problematic (refer Post Office / TT Mahanyele /

18484 (19 October 2011), Jews for Jesus / UOS / 9141 (12 July 2007), and the ruling of the Advertising Standards Committee in Nandos / The International Society of Krishna Consciousness / B Singh / N Singh / (19 September 2003) for examples).

Clause 1 of Section II states, inter alia, that “No advertising may offend against good taste or decency or be offensive to public or sectoral values and sensitivities, unless the advertising is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”.

The commercial depicts an animated Jesus, walking on water. Eventually it is apparent that he is not walking on water but on stepping stones. There can be no doubt that this is a direct reference to what is regarded as one of Jesus’ miracles – walking on water.

In Mavericks / FM Boulle and Another / 11224 (4 August 2008), the Directorate considered a complaint against an advertisement that featured an image of a woman who appeared to be in prayer. She was shown holding a set of Rosary beads with a halo above her head. The payoff line said “BELIEVE”.

The complainant submitted that the advertisement was offensive as it featured symbols which were sacred to Christians to promote a service (a strip club) that Christianity is opposed to. The Directorate stated:

“While the Directorate must be careful not to sanctify religion to a point that advertisers cannot refer to it, it must take cognisance of the manner in which religious symbols are referred to.”

The Directorate upheld the complaint and rejected the respondent’s proposal of removing the halo and rosary beads. It pointed out that, even if these elements were removed, the white dove present in the advertisement was commonly associated with Christian symbolism. It added that doves symbolised the Third person of the Trinity and were featured in Christian art which is symbolic of the Holy Spirit.

In GHD Hair / LJ Van Zyl / 10419 (21 May 2008), the Directorate considered a complaint against a print advertisement that featured an image of a woman with closed eyes, holding Rosary beads in her hands. The Afrikaans wording alongside (translated for the sake of convenience) stated “May my luscious locks wrap every man on earth around my little finger.” The pay-off line “Thy will be done” (“U wil geskied”) was also used. The complainant submitted that the tagline used in this context was offensive. The Directorate upheld the complaint on the basis that the Lords Prayer was used for the sake of vanity and trivialised.

A similar approach can be applied to the matter at hand.

The respondent submitted that the use of the cartoon medium communicates to the viewer that this commercial is not intended to depict a real life scenario. Encarta Dictionary English (UK)’s defines Jesus Christ, inter alia, as “A Jewish religious teacher…His life and teachings form the basis of Christianity”. While the Directorate is mindful of the fact that the commercial is intended to be light-hearted, comical and harmless, this does not remove the direct reference, and ultimately trivialisation of the miracle of Jesus walking on water.

In doing so, the commercial not only makes fun of a basic event of the Christian religion, but uses Jesus Christ who is the central figure of this religion, in a comical situation and in a way that trivialised all events and teachings surrounding Jesus and the miracles he performed. This is something that would likely offend Christians in the same manner as it offended the complainants, and more importantly something that the respondent should reasonably have foreseen.

Based on the above the commercial is in contravention of Clause 1 of Section II of the Code. Given that the respondent has already withdrawn the commercial with permanent effect, the only remaining consideration is whether or not sanctions are appropriate.

In Chicken Licken / Kentucky Fried Chicken (1 September 2003), where a similar issue regarding blatant disregard of the spirit and the letter of the Code was considered, the advertising industry tribunal held that

“.the Tribunal concurred that the crafting of the advertisement was entirely deliberate. The character representing Colonel Saunders was virtually identical to the animated version used as KFC’s brand icon and the references to Finger Licken and the secret recipe were deliberately crafted.

The iconic nature of the figure is not in doubt . Consequently, the following sanctions are imposed on Chicken Licken by the Tribunal: the advertisement is to be withdrawn in its current format and Chicken Licken is also ordered to publish a summarised version of the ruling as prepared by the ASA in the medium in which the advertising complained of appeared. The costs of such publication will be for the account of Chicken Licken in terms of Clause 14.5 (sanctions) in the Procedural Guide.”

The Directorate is of the view that the same sanction applies to the matter at hand as the respondent deliberately portrayed Jesus, who is a central figure of the Christian religion in a comical and disrespectful manner.

The details of the sanction will be included below for future reference.

However, the Directorate specifically notes that the respondent does not have a pattern of disregard, and has not been before the ASA in recent years. Given this, the sanction detailed below is suspended for a period of six months from the date of this ruling.

Should an adverse ruling be made against the respondent in this suspension period, the sanction detailed below will automatically be invoked.

The complaints are therefore upheld, and the sanction imposed is suspended for six months from the date of this ruling, on condition that no further adverse rulings are made against the respondent.

Details of the sanction to be suspended

The respondent is ordered to flight the following summarised version of the ruling as a forty-five second television commercial in the medium in which the advertising complained of appeared and for the same frequency as per the booking schedule used when the commercial was placed. All relevant costs will be for the account of the respondent in terms of Clause 14.5

(Sanctions) of the Procedural Guide. The summarised ruling is to read as follows, and is to be read aloud during the statement, as well as to appear on-screen during the flighting/s:

“The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa recently ruled that Red Bull had breached the Code of Advertising Practice because of the offensive manner in which it portrayed Jesus Christ.

Red Bull’s withdrawal of the commercial was not seen as an adequate resolution, and the Authority pointed out that the commercial not only made fun of a basic tenet of the Christian religion, but referred to and utilised Jesus in a way that trivialised all events and teachings surrounding him.

The Authority felt that Red Bull could reasonably have foreseen the likelihood of offence.

The objections were upheld, and Red Bull instructed to prepare and flight this announcement at its own costs.

The Advertising Standards Authority. Protecting Your Standards”.

The respondent is also reminded of the provisions of Clause 14.9 of the Procedural Guide, which effectively deems any advertising that “is calculated to, or has the effect of undermining” a ruling of the ASA as a contravention of the Code.