« BSA finds TV screwed up coverage of Electoral Finance Bill | Main | Police raid TV3 »
“Confusing” is right
By Steven | February 22, 2008
Deborah Hill Cone opines that the Advertising Standards Complaints Board decision about the Charlies ad is “confusing”.
So’s her column.
She says the decision, upholding the complaint about the ad, is confusing because much more graphic non-cartoony stuff is shown on telly, such as Californication.
Then she says that the ads have commercial motives, and that this is a reason that they are not allowed to be as risque. Then she says that it’s doubly odd because the Burger King ad featuring nublile lovelies on horseback got the ASCB’s blessing. Then she says at least the ASCB doesn’t seem to “rush to censor everything” like the BSA does.
Confusing, indeed. Why point to the BSA’s permissiveness toward dramas like Californication in the same column as you slag the BSA for censoriousness? In fact, the BSA is remarkably robust about allowing edgy drama, even where there’s sex and nudity. Of course, the BSA can’t “censor”, anyway, just uphold complaints. But can Deborah point to examples of a rash of upheld complaints by the BSA that aren’t justified, especially on grounds of taste and decency or denigration? Her column doesn’t contain any.
The Burger King ad featuring horseback bikini girls was, in fact, upheld by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. So the ASCB isn’t being inconsistent. [Graeme Edgeler has pointed out that the complaint against the original horseback bikini girls ad was rejected. So Deborah was right (sorry, Deborah). It was a later Burger King ad, which also happened to feature use of the horseback bikini girls, that was upheld.]
I haven’t seen any reasoning from either the BSA or the ASCB that says ads have to comply with higher standards of taste because they’re seeking business. If the standards are different, it’s because the industry has created them that way. The ASA regime is voluntary self-regulation after all.
Deborah then points to the ASCB’s 15% uphold rate (for 2007, I guess) as evidence that they are more reasonable than the BSA. This doesn’t really work. First, she ignores the complaints that are “settled” – that is, the advertiser pulls the ad, acknowledging that it was in breach. It’s very likely that most of these complaints would have been upheld. Secondly, the uphold figure for 2006 was 36% (and the upheld/settled rate was 57%), so the 15% figure is uncommonly low. The upheld/settled rate is usually around 50%. But this is a bit misleading too, because it ignores the many complaints that are weeded out early in the process as being hopeless. The BSA does almost no such weeding. Its uphold rate in 2006 was about 12%, though that was an abherration, too – usually it’s around 20-25%.
So comparisons are difficult. But Deborah has hardly justified her gratuituous smack at the BSA, or the reasoning beyind her swipe at the ASCB. (As I’ve said, I do agree that the ASCB’s decision is questionable, but for other reasons).
Topics: Advertising Standards, Broadcasting Standards Authority | 46 Comments »
46 Responses to ““Confusing” is right”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The complaint about the Burger King ad featuring horseback bikini girls:
http://203.152.114.11/decisions/06/06364.rtf
was not upheld.
You’re confusing it with one of its sequels (which starts with a quick scene from the previous ad, but then transplants the women into work environments).
And perhaps the BSA can’t censor in one sense of the word, but haven’t they done just that, for example, if TV2 ever wants to air Teenage Caveman again (http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2006/2006-037.htm)?
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Fair cop. I’ll make a change to the text.
As for your censoring point, well, sure. My point, of course, is that the BSA doesn’t censor the way, for example, our censorship authorities do, by preventing the screening at all. It’s a loose word to throw around when you’re bagging an organisation (especially if you’re trying to contrast the BSA with the ASA which on this measure “censors” more material than the BSA does, and via its pre-vetting systems actually censors material in ways the BSA doesn’t).
May 22nd, 2020 at 2:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
May 22nd, 2020 at 7:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
June 4th, 2020 at 5:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
June 6th, 2020 at 8:29 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
June 19th, 2020 at 4:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
July 24th, 2020 at 8:50 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
July 29th, 2020 at 10:10 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 9:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
August 7th, 2020 at 5:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
August 8th, 2020 at 10:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 71030 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
August 16th, 2020 at 2:33 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 2:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
August 26th, 2020 at 4:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
September 3rd, 2020 at 5:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
September 8th, 2020 at 2:21 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
October 10th, 2020 at 1:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
October 14th, 2020 at 12:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
October 15th, 2020 at 11:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
November 5th, 2020 at 2:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
November 7th, 2020 at 2:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
November 11th, 2020 at 5:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
December 2nd, 2020 at 3:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 3946 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
December 6th, 2020 at 1:44 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
December 18th, 2020 at 12:51 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
December 21st, 2020 at 2:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
December 23rd, 2020 at 12:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
December 23rd, 2020 at 2:50 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
January 17th, 2021 at 7:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
February 18th, 2021 at 11:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
March 3rd, 2021 at 7:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
March 25th, 2021 at 1:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
March 26th, 2021 at 12:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
April 2nd, 2021 at 8:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 54810 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
April 8th, 2021 at 11:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
May 2nd, 2021 at 11:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
May 4th, 2021 at 2:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
May 19th, 2021 at 2:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
June 23rd, 2021 at 6:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 7:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 6:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
July 2nd, 2021 at 1:53 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 44522 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
July 7th, 2021 at 12:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
July 10th, 2021 at 9:05 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 59556 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 3:44 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 21814 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=66 […]