| Bulletin | 09/6 |
| Batch No. | 189 |
| Ref | 12281 |
| Product | Furniture & Fabrics |
| Advertiser | Ikea |
| Agency | |
| Medium | Outdoor |
| Complaint Advertisement: The advertisement referred to the opening of the new Ikea store in Dublin and stated ‘BE “SICK” Bring out your Rebel’. Complaint: The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) complained that the advertising campaign encouraged employees to take days off work pretending to their employer to “BE SICK”. They also considered the advertisement to be irresponsible, that it trivialised illness and that it encouraged suspicion about the truthfulness of employees and absenteeism due to sickness. The ICTU also said that the campaign was very irresponsible at a time when the Department of Health were trying to put an effective mechanism in place to deal with the outbreak of swine flu by encouraging people to take time off work should they contract the virus. Other complainants said that absenteeism is not a culture to be encouraged and that the encouragement of honesty and truthfulness would be more appropriate than encouraging lying to, or defrauding employers. |
|
| 2006 Code | |
| 2002 Code |
|
| Response The advertisers said that in no way was the IKEA campaign and specifically the 'Be Sick' outdoor and press adverts designed to cause any upset or harm. The term 'Be Sick' was in no way linked to absenteeism from work, and in no way was the workplace or specific illnesses a target or mentioned in the advertisements. The term ‘Be Sick’ was linked specifically to home furnishings and that was taken to mean that once consumers shop in Ikea they will want to spend as much time as possible in their newly decorated room. Ikea’s creative agency confirmed that the campaign had been devised prior to the outbreak of swine flu. The advertisers said that they have a very strong HR culture and values which foster employee trust and employee development. The culture and values have been well documented through their recent recruitment campaigns. Finally they confirmed that as of 4th September all of their advertising pertaining to this campaign had been taken down and would not be used again in the future. |
|
| Conclusion Complaints Upheld. The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. While they noted the position set out by the advertiser, they considered on balance that in the current economic climate any trivialisation of absenteeism because of unfounded claims of illness was not considered to be in conformity with the requirement that advertisements be prepared “with a sense of responsibility to society. Action Required: As the campaign had finished and would not be used again no further action was deemed necessary. |
|