Share

ASA issues warning on 'offensive' charity ads

 ASA issues warning on 'offensive' charity ads
News

ASA issues warning on 'offensive' charity ads

Finance | Vibeka Mair | 18 Mar 2009

The Advertising Standards Authority has criticised charity advertisers who “cross the line of acceptability” or readily turn to shock tactics to bring an issue to public attention.

The ASA has published a review of charity advertising in light of complaints more than doubling from 577 in 2007 to 1,453 in 2008. Over 800 of the complaints in 2008 were made about a TV ad for Barnardo’s (pictured) which featured a child repeatedly being hit. The ASA did not uphold the complaints as it concluded the aim of the ad justified the use of such strong imagery.

In its review, the ASA admitted there was an unwritten, but generally accepted rule that charities were allowed slightly more leeway than other advertisers because of what they were trying to achieve.

But it insisted that while charities might have more legitimate reasons for using stark or hard-hitting imagery, they were still bound by the same rules as other advertisers.

“By using emotive – or even distressing – imagery, the ASA has ruled that charity advertisers sometimes cross the line of acceptability – irrespective of the importance of the issue they are trying to bring to the public’s attention,” said an ASA spokesman.

Reputational risk to the whole sector


The ASA also warned that charities had to consider the reputation of the sector as a whole, singling out the Barnardo’s ad as a bad example.

“In 2008 over half the complaints about charity ads were about the Barnardo’s campaign. Just one high-profile ad can cause a dramatic spike in the number of complaints for a sector and ultimately can risk casting charity advertisers in a bad light.

“So, when is it ok to cause serious or widespread offence in a charity advertisement? The short answer is, never. Although shock tactics can be effective at raising awareness about an important issue by jolting the public into action, there is a difference between being provocative for the sake of it and using a justifiable hard-hitting approach.

“Being remembered for the wrong reasons could result in negative publicity for a charity – and might not engender charitable feelings amongst the public.”

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Free eNews

Charities could lose out on gift aid under devolution settlement, tax experts warn

27 Nov 2014

Proposals from the Smith Commission to give Scotland powers over the rate of income tax will have “significant...

More will-writers prompting clients to leave legacy gifts, research shows

27 Nov 2014

More solicitors and will-writers are telling their clients about leaving a legacy than at any time in...

ASA bans Health Lottery advert for encouraging gambling behaviour

26 Nov 2014

The Advertising Standards Agency has ruled that an advert from the Health Lottery promoting an online...

Joint registration between Charity Commission and HMRC delayed

27 Nov 2014

Plans for the Charity Commission and HM Revenue & Customs to set up a joint registration process for...

NCVO backs Commission's focus on regulation

26 Nov 2014

NCVO supports the Charity Commission’s decision to focus more on regulation, but is cautious about the...

MPs urged to retain amendments to judicial review bill to protect charities

26 Nov 2014

A group of legal bodies have written to MPs to urge them to protect judicial review from changes that...

'Be careful what you say and don't be boring on social media'

27 Nov 2014

Don’t be too serious on social media and be prepared to pay for premium services, delegates at yesterday’s...

'Focus on people as well as technology', IT experts told

27 Nov 2014

IT directors need to learn when to step back and allow others in their organisation to experiment with...

JustGiving launches free guide to raising money using social media

25 Nov 2014

JustGiving and social media consultancy Social Misfits Media have launched a guide to how charities and...

Join the discussion

 Twitter button

@CSFinance