Advertisment
Advertisements No 1 and 2.
Advertisements No. 1 and 2 which appeared in various media including, outdoor, internet (company website) and social media (Facebook & Twitter) and in-store promotional material were depicted as follows:
The first advertisement featured a picture of a denim jacket with a badge pinned just beneath the collar. The writing on the badge in capital letters read:
“WE’RE PRO-CHOICE”
The writing at the bottom of the advertisement read:
“THE ONLY PLACE YOU GET TO CHOOSE YOUR NETWORK, PHONE AND PLAN.
Carphone Warehouse”.
The second advertisement featured a picture of a young baby wearing its vest; it posed the following question:
WHAT MAKES A FAMILY
□MUM & MUM □MUM & DAD □DAD & DAD
To the right of the above grid there was a circular badge which read:
“WE’RE PRO-CHOICE”
The writing at the bottom of the advertisement read:
“THE ONLY PLACE YOU GET TO CHOOSE YOUR NETWORK, PHONE AND PLAN.
Carphone Warehouse”.
Advertisement No 3.
The third advertisement appeared as a banner advertisement on the Company Website. It featured the head and shoulders of a person with a neutral expression. The person had a short hairstyle and wore a collarless tee-shirt with straps going over the shoulders. The top of the banner posed the following question:
WHAT DO YOU SEE?
□GUY □GIRL □ME
To the right of the above grid there was a circular badge which read:
“WE’RE PRO-CHOICE”
The writing at the bottom of the advertisement once again read:
“THE ONLY PLACE YOU GET TO CHOOSE YOUR NETWORK, PHONE AND PLAN.
Carphone Warehouse”.
Complaint
Advertisement No 1 and 2.
Over 40 complaints were received in relation to these advertisements. The common theme running through all complaints was that the wording used on the badge featured in the advertising was similar to the wording adopted by those involved in the Pro-Choice Campaign to repeal the 8th Amendment of the Irish Constitution. The complainants referred to the ongoing debate in Ireland about this issue, which some described as very emotive and divisive. The majority of complainants strongly considered that the use of the wording ‘Pro-Choice’ in the current climate was highly offensive and trivialised a very sensitive topic, particularly as it was linked to the sale of mobile phones/plans. Some complainants considered the image of the baby in the second advertisement compounded their concerns.
A number of complainants also considered that the campaign lacked a sense of responsibility to society.
Advertisement No 3.
The complainant considered the advertisement to be extremely offensive to transgender people as well as to lesbian, gay and bisexual people. The complainant said that the implication on viewing the advertisement was that transgender people ‘choose’ their gender and that such ‘choice’ was frivolous. The complainant also said to target and undermine transgender people or to trivialise their experiences and portray them in a negative light was unacceptable in today’s society
Response
The advertisers said that their business was built on offering choice across mobile networks, phones and plans and they were therefore the champions of choice. They were the only retailer in the country to promote this unique aspect of their business in a deliberately challenging way.
They said that the campaign executions had used a variety of topical issues from the US Election to gender fluidity, marriage and sexual preference. Each one highlighted their assertion that everyone had the right to choice.
Advertisements No. 1 & 2.
In relation to these two advertisements, the advertisers said that they had neither supported nor promoted abortion. Neither had they advocated for the either side in the referendum debate. Their position was that they simply believed in the value and right of choice.
The advertisers said that they accepted that some people had not been able to see past the words ‘Pro Choice’ and in particular when the poster had the image of a young baby. They said, however, that the use of the baby’s image had been used in conjunction with the different family parenting options now available, as supported in the recent Marriage Referendum.
They said that it had never been their intention to cause upset or offence to anybody with their advertising and confirmed that the poster with the baby image would be withdrawn and the phrase ‘Pro Choice’ would be replaced in future marketing communications with the words ‘Your Choice’.
Advertisement No. 3
In relation to the question posed in this advertisement ‘What do you see Girl, Guy, Me?’ the advertisers said that they had hoped that the universal answer might have been the person rather than their gender. While accepting that the viewer was presented with a choice, they said that the advertisement categorically did not suggest that gender in itself was a choice.
Conclusion
Complaints upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the details of the complaints and the advertisers’ response.
The Committee noted that the advertising reflected a number of topical issues and did not consider per se that this was in conflict with the requirements of the Code.
Advertisements No. 1 & 2.
The Complaints Committee considered the number and the details of the complaints received in relation to these advertisements. They noted the advertisers had withdrawn the advertisement featuring the baby and had amended the wording ‘pro-choice’ to ‘Your choice’ on receipt of notification of the complaints from the ASAI.
The Committee noted the level of offence that had been caused by the campaign. They reminded the advertisers that it was not in compliance with the requirements of the Code to use offensive or provocative copy or images merely to attract attention. They also reminded them that public sensitives should be taken into account in the preparation of all marketing communications. In the circumstances the Committee considered advertisements 1 and 2 to be in breach of Section 3.3 and 3.20 of the Code.
Complaints upheld.
Advertisement No. 3
The Complaints Committee appreciated that the intention in the advertisement had not been to imply that people had a choice in relation to their gender identity. Nevertheless they considered that the advertisement could be read a number of ways including; a) that readers should guess the individual’s gender identity based on appearance; b) that a choice was involved in deciding on one’s own gender identity and/or c) that readers were invited to see the “person” rather than an individual associated with a particular gender.
In this context, the Complaints Committee considered the portrayal of minority groups, potential vulnerability of people within such groups and the desire to avoid their potential exploitation.
They noted that were the advertisement to be interpreted on the basis of either a) or b) above, such interpretation would be likely to cause offence to transgender people.
While the Committee did not consider that the advertisement had sought to target transgender people, nor that it had trivialised their experiences or portrayed them in a negative light, they did consider that the content of the marketing communication was likely to cause offence and was in breach of Sections 3.3, 3.19 and 3.20 of the Code.
Complaints upheld.
The Committee noted that the advertisers would not use the wording ‘Pro Choice’ in future marketing material and on that basis no further action was required in relation to this issue.
The Committee told the advertisers, however, that advertisement No. 3 should not be used in its current format again.
