The Success Of Advertising Self-Regulation: A Case Study On The Meat And Livestock Australia Advertisement Promoting Lamb
Self-Regulation in Advertising Industry
Discuss About The Legislative Council Liberal Members Twice.
The Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) is the industry body which gets hundreds of complaints regarding the advertisements and a number of these are outrageous; though, only a few of these are actioned. In 2012 alone, the ASB got a total of 3,640 complaints for over 500 advertisements. Only 473 of these advertisements were looked into by the ASB and out of these, only 68 were held to have contravened the Code of Ethics which has been formulated by ASB. Where less than a 100 adverts were held to have contravened the code formed by the ASB, the question has been asked on its relevance. This is particularly due to the self-regulation system of the industry where the ASB deals with complaints on daily basis (Mumbrella, 2012). The goal of self-regulation is to maintain high standards of advertisements and making certain that the trust is upheld and the protection of community’s benefit is ensured (Advertising Standards Bureau, 2017a). As is not very surprising, the majority of claims are dismissed on some or the other grounds. This shows that the self-regulation system drawn by the ASB is quite successful, which has led to questions being raised on the efficiency of ASB. In the following parts, the points which support the contention of self-regulation system being successful one, have been presented, particularly in context of the recent issue of effectiveness of advertising self-regulation focusing on the Meat and Livestock Australia advertisement promoting lamb.
Before starting on the self-regulation being a success, there is a need to understand what self-regulation exactly is. The present system of self-regulation was formed after extensively consulting with consumer, government representatives and industry. It has been recognized that the advertisers share the interest which promotes consumer confidence and respect for general standards of advertising. It provides an efficient, as well as, an effective manner for engaging for the advertisers with the consumers and in responding to the concerns of the consumers regarding a particular advertisement (Cunningham, 2010). The consumer protection is ensured through self regulation by giving a fast and free route for the consumers for the purpose of expressing their concerns regarding the advertisement and in having an impartial body which can be contacted. The self-regulation for the advertising industry is attained by forming set of principles and rules regarding best practices, which the industry is bound to in a voluntary manner. Through the codes and industry initiatives, these rules are expressed, and are based on belief that such adverts are decent, truthful, and legal and honest, which have been created in sense of responsibility towards society and consumer, and by placing proper respect towards fair competition. The industry supports this voluntary code even when the same is not underpinned in any legislation and this result in the success of world class system of self regulation in advertising industry of the nation. The participants follow the strict guidelines given under the code and follow the advertising standards, where they even agree for levies being applied on media expenditures and comply with the ASB’s decisions (Advertising Standards Bureau, 2017a).
Advertising Standards Bureau
An advertisement is something which comes across the different members of the society and each of such members has different views about the advertisement. An advertisement may be liked by one group of people and hated by another, whilst a third group may be indifferent about it all together. Every advertisement thus has different stakeholder groups within the consumer segments, which can offend some and be loved by others. This is the reason why the advertisements have to be ethical, apart from being merely legal. However, these ethics too need to be defined as different approaches can lead to a single advertisement being deemed as ethical or unethical. This is the reason why the ASB presented the code of ethics which have to be followed for advertisements in the nation and the reason for the same being ethical, instead of being legal. The ASB also administers the best practice guidelines, the food and beverage codes, the codes for advertising and marketing communications to children, and lastly, the marketing communications code, amongst the plethora of codes provided by it (Advertising Standards Bureau, 2017b). Every advertisement thus has to consider these codes, in a voluntary manner, where the economic, environmental and the socio-cultural factors also play a key role. Where a person still gets “offended” by a particular advertisement, they can make a case before the ASB. ASB thus analyses these complaints against the codes which have been drawn and which are administered by ASB. In doing so, the codes are strictly followed to decide if the claims are really true or not.
Recently a controversial advertisement created uproar in the nation, where even the Indian High Commission made a complaint to the Australian government, due to the controversial lamb ad showing Hindu god, Lord Ganesha, where ‘We Love our Lamb’ was being promoted. A diplomatic protest was lodged by the Indian High Commission and they urged Meat and Livestock Australia to withdraw this commercial as it was deemed to be hurtful and offensive towards the religious sentiments of the Hindus (Kaushal, 2017). The complaint of this status is still unknown. However, the complaint which was made with the ASB by the Hindu groups was dismissed, where the ASB held that the tone of this advertisement was light-hearted in an overall manner, which humorously promoted multi-faith environment (Scroll, 2017). In this TV ad, different gods, mythical leaders, and religious characters, were depicted as sitting around a table and having a meal together. The figures included Jesus, Ganesha, Buddha, Thor, Moses and Aphrodite (Wolfe, 2017). The hostess is shown to have no religion and states that lamb was something which was meant to be consumed by all. The complaint was made on different aspects of this advertisement, where it was quoted to be a “disgraceful blasphemous attack on religious faith”. The issue was particularly grave as Lord Ganesha is a vegetarian god and to show them at the table of meat lovers adds fuel to the fire (Schipp, 2017). The ban on this video was not simply called by the Hindus, but from the people of other religions also. This included the one from ElizaBeth Webb Beyer, Jewish Rabbi in Nevada-California, Stephen R. Karcher, senior Greek Orthodox Christian priest, and Matthew T. Fisher, Buddhist priest (Hickman, 2017).
Codes of Ethics and Best Practice Guidelines
The response to this advertisement was given in detail by the advertiser they stated that the advertisement was meant to show the celebration of lamb in the nation and thus a fictional scene was created which showed religious diversity between different characters/ icons attending an outdoor dinner party Aussie style (Kainth, 2017). This was a light hearted portrayal where the guests were shown to poke fun at each other. The religion is denied in this video by the young female, which shows that there is an absence of implied or express connotation to religion, as the same is not accepted. The goal of this advertisement was to encourage inclusiveness and tolerance. The complaint was made under section 2.1 of the code of ethics where the marketing or advertising communications are restricted from showing people or depicting the material in such a manner where a discrimination or vilification is carried between sections of community based on race, religion or other factors. This is where the self-regulation rule was shown to be properly followed in this advertisement and for this purpose the advertisement had to be carefully analysed. The first key factor of this advertisement was that lamb was shown in it, instead of beef, which is sacred in nature for Hindus. A key point here was that Lord Ganesha was not shown to be eating lamb or even drinking the alcohol during any point in this ad. The reference to the elephant in the room, or the reverse miracle was just a humorous take and not meant to offend anyone. The code does not restrict the use of religious concepts in the advertisements, and instead just provides the rules where the people or material is not to be used in a discriminating or vilifying manner. There was no kind of discrimination in this advertisement and also nothing to show bigotry, inequity or unfair treatment towards any group. There was also a lack of humiliation, intimidation, contempt, ridicule or incitement of hate towards any group, making the advertisement compliant towards the drawn codes. A reasonable view would not take this advertisement as hurtful or discriminatory (Advertising Standards Bureau, 2017c).
The ASB also held the similar views where they analysed the advertisement in context of vilification and discrimination and just found that there were representations made in the ad were a communal setting was present and there was nothing to depict any intimidation, ridicule or hatred towards any person or group. Lord Hindu was never shown to consume lamb in the advertisement which is proof enough that the sentiments of Hindus were cared for. The board also noted that the incident of Mohammed shown not to attend the meal was proof enough that the advertisement makers were religiously careful and Mohammed was not shown at the table as lamb is explicitly forbidden in Islam. The phrase “the meat we can all eat” cannot be deemed to be discriminatory against the ones who do not eat meat as it was about “can eat” instead of having to compulsorily eat it. Thus, this advertisement was instead an example that with the codes being administered by the ASB, the advisement makers are more careful and take steps in ensuring that the codes are followed, which shows the success of the self-regulation (Advertising Standards Bureau, 2017c).
Case Study: Meat and Livestock Australia Advertisement promoting Lamb
Self-regulation of advertisements helps in presenting an effective system of managing the complaints and the concerns which are raised about advertising, and the significance of it is stemmed from the fact that self-regulation helps in preventing the government from brining a restrictive legislation in, which would result in considerable costs being added for the industry, in addition to delaying the ability of the people in getting any advertisement out in a quick manner (Advertising Standards Bureau, 2016). Thus, self-regulation helps in saving industry money, which also makes it easier for them in conducting their business, making them more competitive and giving them a flexible environment to operate in. This is crucial for the commercial freedom of speech. As long as there are clear guidelines, along with level of consistency in the interpretation of these guidelines, self-regulation helps in attaining better outcomes. So, where the industry is the stakeholder group in question, self-regulation are very important and favourable for them (Mumbrella, 2013).
A key critique which is made in cases of self-regulation is that the ASB acts as a gatekeeper of advertising complaints (IAS, 2005). In other words, they are blamed to reject the complaints which are raised against the advertisements in the majority of cases, which raises question on their role and on the efficiency of the drawn codes. This can be applied in the case of advertisement where the gods were sitting at table and toasted to lamb as a meat which everyone can eat. Even though the codes require no religion to be hurt, the same was done in the advertisement. Where a vegetarian God is sitting on a table where everyone is eating wine and drinking alcohol, and where a toast is made to lamb, how can it be deemed as adherence to the code? Is a literal adherence enough for the advertisement to be ethical? The theme of these codes is to be ethical, instead of taking advantage of the same as is done in cases of legal requirements, where only the word of law is followed, instead of its spirit (Nill, 2015). The depiction in this ad of Lord Ganesha mentions that the joke was not funny two thousand year back and still is not funny, which makes a clear reference to the god (Geetube, 2017). Again, by keeping out Mohammad, Muslim sentiments were upheld, but a vegan god’s presence at lamb table is deemed as ethical? This does put questions on the adherence of the ethical codes being done in its literal sense, in addition to the ASB deeming the advertisement as compliant to the drawn codes being wrong (Moriarty, Mitchell and Wells, 2014). Though, this is the problem associated with growing intolerance across the globe, where certain Hindus sects have taken this advertisement as not offensive, and humours. This is the reason why the role of ASB become more crucial and the need for self-regulation to be continued. Also, one cannot deny the points presented in this case being mostly valid, if not entirely correct.
Analysis of Complaints against the Advertisements
Thus, on the basis of this discussion, it becomes very clear that self-regulation is very crucial in Australia. The effectiveness of advertising self-regulation particularly in context of the Meat and Livestock Australia advertisement promoting lamb and associated complaint cases are properly managed by the ASB, which evaluates each and every advertisement, particularly each and every scene to analyse if the advertisement has been discriminatory or has contravened other provisions of the applicable codes. In doing so, it objectively follows the code, which gives clear decisions on whether a certain advertisement is compliant or is discriminatory. This was seen in the case of advertisement, where Lord Ganesha was shown at the lamb table. The careful analysis of this advertisement showed that no religious sentiments had been hurt. Thus, this code effectively protects the stakeholders, particularly the consumers and the advertisers, and ensures that the displayed adverts are ethical, as per the drawn standards
References
Advertising Standards Bureau. (2016) How self-regulation works and why. [Online] Advertising Standards Bureau. Available from: https://adstandards.com.au/blog/how-self-regulation-works-and-why [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Advertising Standards Bureau. (2017a) Self-regulation. [Online] Advertising Standards Bureau. Available from: https://adstandards.com.au/about/self-regulation [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Advertising Standards Bureau. (2017b) Codes and Initiatives. [Online] Advertising Standards Bureau. Available from: https://adstandards.com.au/about/self-regu https://adstandards.com.au/codes-and-cases/codes-and-initiativeslation [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Advertising Standards Bureau. (2017c) Case Report. [Online] Advertising Standards Bureau. Available from: https://adstandards.com.au/cases/2017/September?ref=0414/17 [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Cunningham, S. (2010) The Media and Communications in Australia. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Geetube. (2017) Australian Lamb Ad – Gods around the Table Socialising 2017. [Online] YouTube. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9UnNq9srog&feature=youtu.be [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Hickman, A. (2017) MLA lamb ad complaints reach Australian government. [Online] Ad News. Available from: https://www.adnews.com.au/news/mla-lamb-ad-complaints-reach-australian-government [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
IAS. (2005) A decade of failure – Self-regulation of alcohol advertising in Australia. [Online] IAS. Available from: https://www.ias.org.uk/What-we-do/Alcohol-Alert/Issue-2-2005/A-decade-of-failure-Self-regulation-of-alcohol-advertising-in-Australia.aspx [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Kainth, S. (2017) A Labor Member of NSW Legislative Council says the Liberal members twice refused to back his motion which calls on MLA to withdraw an advertisement showing Lord Ganesha in a meat ad. [Online] SBS. Available from: https://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/punjabi/en/article/2017/09/22/politics-heats-over-ganesha-meat-ad [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Kaushal, A. (2017) This ad showing Lord Ganesha eating lamb has sparked outrage among Hindu groups. [Online] Hindustan Times. Available from: https://www.hindustantimes.com/more-lifestyle/this-ad-showing-lord-ganesha-eating-lamb-has-sparked-outrage-among-hindu-groups/story-JGeteTGtjLyNOqiZGL8azI.html [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Moriarty, S., Mitchell, N.D., and Wells, W.D. (2014) Advertising: Principles and Practice. Melbourne, Victoria: Pearson Australia.
Mumbrella. (2012) Is there any point to the Advertising Standards Bureau?, [Online] Mumbrella. Available from: https://mumbrella.com.au/point-advertising-standards-bureau-186393 [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Nill, A. (2015) Handbook on Ethics and Marketing. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Schipp, D. (2017) The meat and livestock industry might love its lamb, but its latest ad had just been punted off the menu. [Online] News. Available from: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/hindus-get-lamb-ad-ban-as-advertising-watchdog-does-backflip/news-story/ff7528c4ae4cfdbc45fc77d1e67a10e6 [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Scroll. (2017) Australian advertising watchdog dismisses pleas to ban a commercial that shows Ganesha eating meat. [Online] Scroll. Available from: https://scroll.in/latest/851172/australian-advertising-watchdog-dismisses-pleas-to-ban-a-commercial-that-shows-ganesha-eating-meat [Accessed on: 03/12/17]
Wolfe, N. (2017) Indian government lodge official diplomatic protest over lamb ad with Hindu god Lord Ganesha. [Online] News. Available from: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/indian-government-lodge-official-diplomatic-protest-over-lamb-ad-with-hindu-god-lord-ganesha/news-story/16137f258ae8519edfedf84ac114e499 [Accessed on: 03/12/17]