Green light for Virgin Mobile ad

Although the number of complaints from offended Christians was relatively high, the ASA looked carefully at the actual content of the ad. "People react emotionally when they believe their religion has been mocked," says Gail Schimmel, head of legal and regulatory affairs at the ASA, "But when you watch the ad objectively you realise that this is a fantasy heaven, and not a comment on a particular religion."

RULING OF THE ASA DIRECTORATE

In the matter between:

MR J J MOLLER & OTHERS - COMPLAINANTS

AND

VIRGIN MOBILE SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD - RESPONDENT

25 July 2006

VIRGIN MOBILE / J J MOLLER AND OTHERS / 5464

Consumer complaints were lodged against a Virgin Mobile television commercial that was flighted in June 2006 on various television channels.

The commercial promotes the respondent's new cell phone contract package that allows a subscriber to cancel the contract at any given time.

It depicts a man (Jack) suffering a heart attack due to his costly monthly cell phone bill. Once he has passed away, he ascends to heaven, and sees, inter alia, scantily dressed female angels carrying beer and washing sports cars. He meets a gatekeeper, who briefly describes Jack's life. Once the gatekeeper realises that Jack is still bound to his existing cell phone contract, he denies him access to heaven and sends him back to earth to live out the remainder of his contract.

COMPLAINTS

In essence, the complainants submitted that the commercial is offensive and discriminatory to Christians as it makes a mockery of the Christian faith and offensively portrays the concept of Heaven, by including angels in the form of seductively clad women with wings.

RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE

In light of the complaint the following clauses of the Code were taken into account:

• Clause I of Section II - Offensive advertising
• Clause 3.4 of Section II - Discrimination

RESPONSE

Attorneys Adams & Adams, on behalf of the respondent, submitted, inter alia, that:

• The commercial in question is presented in a light-hearted and humorous manner, and is clearly not intended as an accurate portrayal of the beliefs of any particular religion, or concept of heaven. The commercial portrays the main character's conceptualisation of utopia and the depiction of attractive women, as angels, is merely a hyperbole of what he considers his utopia to be.
• The intention of the commercial is not an attempt to single out members of any particular religion, and the concepts of St Peter, heaven and angels are not basic tenets of the Christian faith specifically. The correct interpretation of the commercial makes clear that the main character (Jack) is denied access to heaven due to his continuing obligations elsewhere, namely his cell phone bill. This is done in a humorous and exaggerated fashion that will not be interpreted literally by the reasonable viewer.
• The respondent further submitted that the number of complaints received is miniscule compared to the total number of Christian people residing in South Africa, and even more so when compared to the entire South African population.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING

The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

Clause I of Section II states, inter alia, "No advertising may offend against good taste or decency or be offensive to public or sectoral values and sensitivities, unless the advertising is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom".

Furthermore, Clause 3.9 of Section I states that it is the validity, rather than the quantity of complaints submitted, that is a determining factor when deciding whether or not advertising contravenes the Code.

In considering complaints dealing with religion, the Directorate is guided by the Advertising Standards Committee (The ASC) ruling in the Cash Crusaders / Ngcobo S and Others (3 July 2002) matter. In that matter, the ASC ruled that while the commercial may be offensive to some, the hypothetical reasonable person would not find the commercial offensive.

The population of South Africa is multi-faith and multi-cultural, which can mean that religious groups are more sensitive and particular about their beliefs against a perceived background of "secularity". The Directorate acknowledges that characters or images related to religious beliefs or customs are always a contentious issue and, as with other matters, takes into consideration the overall communication of the advertising material and its impact on the hypothetical reasonable person. This fictional, reasonable person is the normal, balanced, right thinking person who is neither hypercritical nor over sensitive.

In a ruling of the ASA Appeal Committee, (in the matter between Hi-fi Corporation / Various complainants / July 2001), it was noted that in order to ascertain the meaning of advertising due regard has to be had to the surrounding circumstances, the language and the probable impact of the advertising as a whole upon the reasonable viewer or listener. These criteria have to be looked at objectively. Further, it must be accepted that advertisers use a certain amount of hyperbole in order to promote their product or their cause. Advertising by its nature contains innuendos and ambiguities and as such one cannot apply literal and realistic claims tests absolutely without becoming open to ridicule.

The commercial depicts the death of the main character, Jack, in a hyperbolic and humorous manner. He dies as a result of receiving a large cell phone bill and is subsequently transported, by means of an elevator, to what appears to be heaven where the "angels" listen to rock music, wash sports cars and serve beer.

The images of heaven appear to be Jack's fantasy of what heaven looks like. It contains only him, a gatekeeper, attractive "angels" serving drinks and doing chores, beer, and sports cars. It is a secular, non-denominational heaven, rather than clearly a Christian heaven.

This cannot within reason be interpreted as an attempt at a factual or accurate portrayal of heaven, and the hypothetical reasonable person would recognise the exaggeration. Jack's initial delight on arriving at this place also reinforces the notion that his dream has come true.

It is also noted that there is nothing to indicate that Jack's heaven is a Christian heaven. There is no reference to crosses or Jesus Christ or God. It is accepted that the gatekeeper may be interpreted to be a St Peter-type character. In this regard it is noted that in Red Bull / R Erasmus & Others (10 November 2004) the Directorate, considered whether or not the concept of St Peter and the gates to heaven is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. It ruled, "The Directorate is of the opinion that the concept of St Peter at the Pearly Gates is universally used. It is not the sole domain of religious interpretation nor does it form a basic tenet of the Christian religion. Not all Christian denominations believe in St Peter at the gates in a literal manner. In addition, the concept, and parodies, of heaven and hell are in common usage and are not unique to the Christian faith".

In the matter at hand the concepts of a gatekeeper to heaven (such as St Peter), the book of life, and the gates to heaven are not basic tenets of the Christian faith, and that these concepts are universally used. Many other religions and belief systems embrace or teach the concept of an afterlife and heaven.

The story in the commercial is over the top and humorous. Jack exaggerates his shock at receiving his bill and drops dead as a result. He is sent back to earth because he is "still tied to [his] cell phone contract". The gatekeeper wears a cell phone around his neck, a fur coat and a ring on almost every finger. This emphasises the hyperbole and the hypothetical reasonable person would realise that the humour lies in the fact that Jack can not escape his cell phone obligations, even in death.

The hypothetical reasonable person would immediately recognise the humour and understand that this is not a realistic depiction of a particular religion, or its concept of heaven.

The Directorate also considers it important that there is no criticism, whether explicit or implied, of any religion. No belief system is mocked; no religion is portrayed as not gaining access to heaven, and no religious symbols are used.

The Directorate acknowledges that numerous complaints were received, and continue to be received, in a short period of time from the Christian public who constitute the majority faith in South Africa. In evaluating whether the offence therefore amounts to sectoral offence, the Directorate notes that:

• certain complaints were matched almost identically to others, and it can be deduced that they were part of an orchestrated complaint. While this does not invalidate the complaints, it indicates that certain complaints were not spontaneously motivated after seeing the commercial;
• some of complaints are factually incorrect in that they have incorrectly interpreted the commercial as relaying the message that admittance to heaven will not be granted if one is not a Virgin Mobile subscriber; some complainants appear to mistake the gatekeeper for God and other complainants are offended by references in the commercial to God and Jesus which are in fact not there;
• the complaints do not appear to be representative of the large, diverse Christian population in South Africa. To find that this sector has been offended on the basis of complaints from one part of the sector would be incorrect.

The Directorate is therefore satisfied that while the level of offence is high, and the commercial is therefore clearly alienating a particular part of the Christian audience, there is not a basis to find that the Christian sector, as a whole, has been offended.

In reaching this ruling, the Directorate has also had regard to the constitutional principles of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. In Good Hope / Venables & Others (12 December 2005) the Final Appeal Committee emphasised the importance of constitutional principles in considering a matter, and found in that matter that there were not sufficient grounds to justify a limitation of freedom of expression. In the matter at hand the Directorate is similarly not convinced that, given all the above factors, there is sufficient cause to limit the right to freedom of expression.

For all of the above reasons, the Directorate is satisfied that the commercial is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. The commercial therefore does not contravene Clause I of Section II of the Code.

Clause 3.4 of Section II, states that advertising shall not discriminate unless such discrimination is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

Clause 4.17 of Section I defines discrimination as any act or omission that directly or indirectly imposes a burden or obligation, or withholds a benefit or opportunity from any persons based on, inter alia, race, gender, sex, or religion.

The Directorate notes that neither the message, nor the words and visuals are dismissive of the Christian faith or its followers.

The only obligation or burden imposed on any person is the costly cell phone bill Jack receives, and is consequently the cause of him being refused access to heaven. This is clearly over the top exaggeration.

No burdens or obligations are imposed and no benefits are withheld from anybody on the basis of religion in the manner proscribed by the Code. Accordingly, it cannot be argued that the commercial is discriminatory.

In light of the above the commercial does not contravene Clause 3.4 of Section II of the Code.

The complaints are accordingly dismissed.