Tesco Mobile ads banned for using rude words

The question

Can you replace expletives with similar sounding terms/images when advertising your products or services?

The key takeaways

It may be possible to allude to rude words and to use some tongue-in-cheek wordplay when advertising to an adult audience, however great care must always be taken. For example, you must ensure that allusions are not so similar to the reference words, such that people would interpret the phrase/image in a way that could cause offence. And of course, running such ads in close proximity to children or on media with no audience restrictions will almost always be seen as non-compliant with the CAP Code. In the Tesco Mobile case, the ASA determined that, though distasteful, not all witty straplines such as “For fettuccine’s sake” fall foul of causing harm and offence. However, ads using phrases closely linked to expletives both “phonetically and orthographically” will be in breach. Accessibility by children is also a factor alongside the presentation of the ad.

The background

Tesco Mobile, the large supermarket chain’s subsidiary network provider, ran a provocative advertising campaign in February. The series of mixed media ads contained three national newspaper ads, one paid-for Twitter post, and three outdoor posters. Ad straplines included, “What a load of shiitake”, with an image of a mushroom, “They’re taking the pistachio” and “For fettuccine’s sake”. 

The ASA banned 6 out of the 7 ads, having received 52 complaints about the campaign. Complaints were predominately due to proximity of the ads to children’s spaces and likelihood to cause harm and offence. The one ad that was not banned, was the newspaper ad which featured text which stated, “For fettuccine’s sake” in large text, followed by an image of pasta. The ASA acknowledged those publications were not as obvious allusions to expletives as the rest and were printed in publications that had to be actively purchased in a shop or by subscription. They therefore considered that children were unlikely to see these ads. 

The development

Tesco Mobile initially responded to the ASA saying they had reviewed the CAP Code and did not believe that the ads were in breach. By not using any offensive words or imagery Tesco Mobile believed that the ads were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. Following the ASA decision, a Tesco Mobile spokeswoman further apologised saying: “we’re really sorry for any offence caused. We know the frustration that consumers face when they notice their mobile phone bill has gone up mid-contract and we were reflecting their frustration – and ours – in these ads”. Tesco Mobile also said that when they were made aware that one of their publishers was uncomfortable running some of the copy, they had conducted a further internal review of the ads in accordance with the CAP Code and concluded that the ads were not in breach of the Code.

JC Decaux, prior to publishing the ads, contacted the CAP Copy Advice team, who believed the references to expletives would likely be in breach of the CAP Code. JC Decaux did not share that advice with Tesco Mobile directly, but they made their agency aware of the Copy Advice team’s recommendation. JC Decaux further apologised for the unsuitability and offence caused by this campaign and said they would ensure that it would not be repeated, by re-addressing their internal processes. Meanwhile, the Daily Express newspaper said that while it was clear that the words “shiitake”, “pistachio”, and “fettucine” alluded to expletives, they believed that was not as offensive as using the expletives themselves. They also noted that the words were spelt correctly, for example “pistachio” rather than “pisstachio”. The Daily Express also acknowledged that whilst the allusions were intended to be humorous, that humour was subjective and needed to be gauged in light of its audience. They provided evidence regarding 89% of the Daily Express’ readership being over 35 years old, and the readership did enjoy tongue in cheek humour such as that seen in the ads. They also stated that because of the nature of the Daily Express’ readership, the ads were unlikely to be seen by children. 

For the ads that were placed in close proximity to schools the ASA said it was also likely that parents would want their children to avoid these expletives, or obvious allusions to them, and so all the complaints in relation to these ads were upheld. 

Why is this important?

With tongue-in-cheek humour being a popular advertising technique, this decision shows the levels of care ASA requires when using allusions to expletives, especially where such ads are reaching audiences via media which children can access. 

Any practical tips?

When alluding to any rude words in ad copy, advertisers should ensure not to allude to the actual rude term or image too closely. Importantly publishers with audiences who are not restricted to adults should remain extra vigilant about running these type of ads. It follows that both advertisers and publishers should maintain robust internal processes to ensure that inappropriate advertising does not slip through the cracks.