Ad Complaints Reports - Q2 2006
OverviewThe following are case summaries of consumers’ complaints about advertising that were upheld by National and Regional Consumer Response Councils (Councils) for the Q2 2006. Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumers’ complaints under the provisions of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code).
The case summaries are divided into two sections.
Identified Cases
This section identifies the involved advertisers and provides details about consumers’ complaints regarding advertisements that were found by Councils to contravene the Code. In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint. Where provided, an “Advertiser’s Statement” is included in the case summary.
Non-Identified Cases
This section summarizes consumers’ complaints upheld by Councils without identifying the advertiser or the advertisement. In these cases, the advertiser either withdrew, permanently retired, or appropriately amended the advertisement in question after being advised by Advertising Standards Canada that a complaint had been received, but before the matter was adjudicated by Council.
As required by the Code, retail advertisers also ran timely corrective advertisements in consumer-oriented media that reached the same consumers to whom the original advertising was directed..
For information about the Code, the Consumer Complaint Procedure, and previous Ad Complaint Reports select the following links:
 |
||
| Canadian Code of Advertising Standards | ||
|
|
||
| Consumer Complaint Procedure | ||
|
|
||
| Previous Ad Complaints Reports |
|
|
Identified Cases - April 1, 2006 - June 30, 2006
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Applebee's International, Inc. |
| Industry: | Food/Supermarkets |
| Region: | Ontario |
| Media: | Newspaper |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | In a print advertisement, the advertiser offered a coupon for a “free sizzling steak from the menu” at its Niagara Falls location. A small print disclaimer on the coupon read: “Must present this coupon when purchasing a meal.” |
| Complaint: | Staff at the restaurant declined to honour coupons when presented for redemption by the complainant. |
| Decision: | To Council, the small print disclaimer language on the coupon did not clearly communicate the fact that the free dinner was conditional upon the purchase of one meal. Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate statement, omitted relevant information, and did not state all pertinent details of the offer in a clear and understandable manner. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1(a), (b), and (c). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Great Canadian Oil Change |
| Industry: | Service |
| Region: | British Columbia |
| Media: | Direct |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | In a coupon for transmission fluid service the advertiser claimed “competitors’ coupons worth more.” |
| Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the advertisement was misleading, because the advertiser would not honour a competitor’s coupon. |
| Decision: | Because the word “competitors” in the advertisement was not qualified in any way, consumers were entitled to believe that “competitors” included any company that offered transmission fluid services, not just those offering identical services to the advertiser. Council, therefore, concluded that the advertisement omitted relevant information, i.e. a definition of “competitors”, and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of an offer. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1(b) and (c). |
|
Clause 10: Safety |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Effem Inc. |
| Industry: | Food/Supermarkets |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Television |
| Complaint: | 3 |
| Description: | A party scenario was depicted in which the advertised confectionery product was shown tossed in the air and caught in people’s mouths. A super in the commercial stated: “Caution. Dramatization using special effects.” |
| Complaint: | The complainants believed that the commercial depicted acts that could potentially be dangerous if emulated by young children. |
| Decision: | To Council, the confectionery-catching activity appeared realistic and appealing to young and impressionable children who, Council believed, could be prompted to emulate this activity. While the commercial was not targeted to children, they formed a significant part of its audience. Council found that the commercial displayed a disregard for safety by depicting a situation that might reasonably be interpreted as encouraging unsafe practices or acts. Council did not find that the disclaimer, which young children would not be able to read or understand, negated the impression conveyed by the commercial. |
| Appeal: | On appeal by the advertiser, the Appeal Panel confirmed the original decision of Council. The Appeal Panel considered the commercial would be appropriately amended if the media buy were restricted to after 9:00 p.m. times and programs when young children would be unlikely to form a significant part of the viewing audience. |
| Infraction: | Clause 10. |
|
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | MINI Canada |
| Industry: | Automotive |
| Region: | Ontario & British Columbia |
| Media: | Transit |
| Complaint: | 8 |
| Description: | In an out-of-home advertisement featuring a Mini Cooper, the headline read: “Cheetahs are pussies.” |
| Complaint: | The complainants alleged that the use of the word “pussies” in the advertisement was demeaning to women. |
| Decision: | The advertiser said the word “pussies” in the advertisement was an abbreviation of “pussycats”. The complainants understood that in today’s vernacular the word “pussies” is a pejorative term for women suggesting weakness. Notwithstanding that the word is susceptible of having two very different meanings, Council concluded that the target audience was more likely to interpret the term in its pejorative sense. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement was demeaning and disparaging to women. |
| Infraction: | Clause 14(c). |
Non-Identified Cases - April 1, 2006 - June 30, 2006
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Automobile Manufacturer |
| Industry: | Automotive |
| Region: | Ontario |
| Media: | Newspaper |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | In a print advertisement the advertiser offered 0% purchase financing on all new 2006 vehicles. Disclaimer language at the bottom of the advertisement qualified the headline by stating that 0% financing was available for “24/36/48/60 months”. |
| Complaint: | The complainant believed that the advertisement was misleading because he could not obtain 0% financing from the manufacturer’s dealer for the term that he requested. |
| Decision: | The disclaimer language implied the financing rate was available for each advertised vehicle for a 24 or 36 or 48 or 60 month term, when in fact it was not. The disclaimer did not make it clear that the available term of the offer depended on the model of vehicle purchased. Council, therefore, concluded that the advertisement omitted relevant information, and did not state all pertinent details of the offer in a clear and understandable manner. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1(b) and (c). |
