ASA takes issue with finger-pointing article

The original article that started the stir ("Why South Africa performed so pathetically badly at Cannes") can be read on Marketing Web - www.marketingweb.co.za. Below is the ASA's response:

CANNES, CHRIS, AND THE MISSING FACTS
DELINE BEUKES, ASA

At the end of May 2002, 26 countries met in Brussels to agree on common principles and standards of best practice in advertising self-regulation.

One of the representatives attending the meeting, reported that their self-regulatory body recently got the blame for their country not being able to win international awards. This all too familiar accusation, raised smiles all round.

Back from Cannes Chris Moerdyk falls into the same trap. Seeking a scapegoat for the "miserable seven medals" won by South Africa at Cannes, he blames the ASA. If he were truly in search of the truth, he would have checked the facts which tell a very different story. If he sought to express an informed or balanced opinion, he would at least have taken the time to attend one ASA hearing in the last five years! Armchair critics, who have all the answers when deciding if an advertisement contravenes the Code, have little understanding of either the process or the complexities involved.

The ASA committee deciding if an advertisement is offensive represents various sectors of society as well as the industry. There are 14 well informed and carefully briefed individuals and an independent chairperson serving on the Committee. Half of them represent South African society and the other half the industry. This Committee has to reach a decision based on specific sets of criteria:

* Does the advertisement cause either widespread, serious or sectoral offence? What is the context, medium and likely audience? What is the nature of the product or service? What are the prevailing standards, degree of social concern and public interest?

* If the Committee finds that the advertisement is offensive, the right to freedom of expression must be weighed up against the offensiveness to public values in the context of an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

* In interpreting the Code the Committee has to consider the advertisement objectively from the viewpoint of the normal, balanced, right-thinking and reasonable person who is neither hyper-critical or over sensitive.

* In deciding the fate of an advertisement the Committee must act in a procedurally fair manner, and take into account both arguments. The Committee must also set out reasons for their decision.

No Chris, the distorted picture you paint of arbitrary decisions is simply not true.

What are the facts:

* In this country tens of thousands of advertisements are carried each year across various media types. These ads are seen and heard by millions of people.

* The ASA did not "in the last two years clamp down on ads on moral grounds." The ASA did amend the Code in line with the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and its Committees embarked on the difficult task of finding a balance between the different human rights enshrined in the Constitution.

* In the year 2001 only 26 advertisements in South Africa were found to be offensive to public values. Nine of these also contained elements of violence, harm to children, discrimination, or illegality. Only 17 advertisements out of the tens of thousands of advertisements on television, radio, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, leaflets, outdoor hoardings and even the internet, were ruled against by the ASA on the basis of being offensive.

* In the first five months of 2002, despite a 53% increase in complaints, not a single advertisement was ruled against on the grounds of offensive advertising. So much for "the ASA's paranoid banning of ads based on moral judgements"!

In one of the most diverse and complex societies in the world where the potential for offence is enormous, I would call this remarkable, if not a miracle. I also believe that creatives in South Africa are privileged to have a regulatory system that supports responsible creative freedom, but respects human dignity.

Advertisers will often when complaints are passed on to them voluntarily withdraw their advertising. Possibly advertisers recognise the need for sensitivity in this country. Perhaps they wish to respect individual privacy and susceptibilities because it is part of good marketing practice and successful brand building. Advertisers have every right to ask their agencies to do so and to be creative.

Next time Chris, check your facts.