The poster featuring three Irish models posed the following question:
“ARE YOU HUNGRY ENOUGH TO WIN 3 NIGHTS WITH US?”
A picture of a Cadbury Starbar also featured in the poster alongside the website address “NONUTSNOGLORY.IE”
On visiting the website link provided it became apparent to consumers that the advertisers were offering the winner of the competition the opportunity to win a trip to three different cities, Dublin, London and Abu Dhabi and to also meet with the models featured in the advertising.
Two complaints were received in relation to the poster. Both complainants considered the advertisement to be demeaning to women, overtly sexual and unsuitable to advertise a chocolate bar. One of the complainants also pointed out that the chocolate bar in question was one which was eaten by children.
The advertisers said they were disappointed to hear of the two complaints in relation to their advertising as they prided themselves on continually producing exciting, cutting edge and fresh marketing campaigns. While their campaigns may vary in the audiences they target, they said the poster campaign in question was predominantly targeted at males aged 18-24. Females over the age of 18, however, could also participate in the competition.
The advertisers said that their No Nuts No Glory campaign was fronted by three Irish models with whom the winner of the competition would meet and greet as part of their prize. Entrants to the competition were asked to impress the three Irish models featured through the use of a photobomb(1) mechanic. They said that while they accepted that the advertising in question had an edge they did not consider that it had caused offence to the majority of people who had seen it. Finally they said that the campaign in question had been a short term promotion which they had no plans to run with again.
(1) An otherwise normal photograph that has been ruined or spoiled by someone who was not supposed to be in it.
Complaints not Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaints and the advertisers’ response. They noted in this case that two complaints had been received in relation to the advertising. They also noted that the competition had been targeted at those over the age of 18 with the prize in question, the opportunity to visit three cities, being an adult prize. Finally the Committee noted that the competition had come to an end and the advertisers had no plans to use the marketing material again. They accepted that the advertising was offensive to some people who might regard the presentation of the prize as somewhat risqué but on balance did not consider that a breach of the Code was involved.
No further action was required in this case.