Powerful adverts have a habit of raising eyebrows for all sorts of reasons – but sometimes they go too far, and for all the sales driven by adland, it is equally adept at provoking fury and disgust.
That’s where the Advertising Standards Association (ASA) steps in – the UK’s independent authority on advertising standards will assess marketing and advertising campaigns to assess if they have gone too far. And if they have, they can be banned
Ironically, if science fiction author HG Wells’ claim that “advertising is legalised lying” was made in a commercial, the ASA would probably ban it for being misleading – after all, good creatives know their product and target audience inside out, creating campaigns based on that knowledge.
Nevertheless, the ire of the public is regularly directed at those ads that take a risk too far – check the comments on this piece about Channel 4’s recent carbon skidmarks advert for a taster (to say people were “disgusted” is an understatement).
Despite the hate, the skidmarks are still going strong. However, a host of other adverts haven’t survived the ASA’s dock this year. For varying reasons, from the peculiar, to the heinous.
From misleading SUV claims, to provocative Müller yoghurts and deceptive cosmetic surgery adverts, Marketing Beat rounds up some of the more memorable reasons ads went down in 2023.
Why a vegan campaign got killed
You might not immediately link a corner yoghurt with gore, but one advert from vegan campaign group Viva! did.
Playing on the Müller branding, the campaign renamed the brand Killer, and showed a lady eating a gory looking ‘offal’ yoghurt (with the offal replacing the jam corner), and a voiceover highlighting that it was ‘umbilical cord’ flavoured.
“Killer yoghurt. Flavoured with a mother’s grief”, the video said, before concluding with images of indoor dairy farms.
The ASA ruled that the gory advert could be “disturbing to children in particular”, as it had appeared on sites including Duolingo and Poki Games.
Warehouse ad banned for featuring ‘unhealthily thin’ model
An online advert for fashion retailer Warehouse was pulled up in the first half of the year for featuring a model which the ASA deemed appeared “unhealthily thin”. It held that the retailer was “irresponsible” for using the photograph.
The image – which must not be shown in the UK again in its current form – was initially used earlier this year as part of a product listing for an oversized longline biker jacket on the Warehouse website.
The retailer said that using an unaltered picture promoted body inclusivity, pointing out that it used a variety of models to represent women of all body types.
Sorry Toyota, not every advert’s born to roam
Greenwashing has been a key theme for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) this year, with the ASA banning an SUV advert on environmental grounds for the first time in a landmark decision last month.
The Toyota ‘Born to Roam’ adverts showed the vehicles driving through rugged landscapes, including through plains causing dust to rise. A poster also showed around 50 SUVs appeared in a large park on a hilly background.
The ASA ruled that the ‘’ads presented and condoned the use of vehicles in a manner that disregarded their impact on nature and the environment”.
For some the ban was not sufficient. Campaigners from Adfree Cities and Badvertising protested outside the &Partnership, the agency that made the adverts and are calling for an outright ban on SUV sales.
How the ASA brought Etihad down to earth
In perhaps a less surreptitious but more blatant display of greenwashing, Etihad was forced to remove two of its adverts amid concerns it had exaggerated its environmental credentials.
The airline said it had a ‘smaller footprint’ due to reduced single use plastics on board, and suggested that it was“taking a louder, bolder approach to sustainable aviation”.
The ASA thought not. It said not only that reducing single-use plastics was not evidence of “sustainable” aviation but that while many airlines use modern aircraft to reduce emissions, the sector continues to “make a substantial contribution to climate change”.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest marketing news sent straight to your inbox each morning
A dreary day for Alton Towers
If there’s one thing that fires up consumer rage, it’s being misled about a discount or being told they’ll get there money back when they won’t.
One Alton Towers goer was furious to find that the theme park’s Rainy Day Guarantee did not apply, even though it had rained for a significant part of the day.
After all, the offending page did read “If you have a qualifying ticket and if the weather affects the ride offering at Alton Towers Resort on the day of your visit to the Theme Park, you will be entitled to return for a FREE visit”.
Because Alton Towers had neglected to include the fact that its policy comes into play after an hour the ASA ruled that the advert had “omitted information” and “was misleading”.
Certainly to the complainant, who missed out despite it showering all day, because the showers had occurred in bursts of 27 minutes or less.
The adverts that need to check their own image first
Four adverts for Turkish clinics were banned in October for “irresponsible advertising”for exploiting body image. The adverts offered promotional discounts for procedures including ‘Three Areas Liposuction – Tummy Tuck= Breast Lift”, all alongside the slogan “Special Offer For This Month” and “Grab this Opportunity”.
The ASA argued that the reference to needing to grab an opportunity pressurised consumers into getting the procedures. It also highlighted that claims about procedures being “99% successful” at a another clinic were irresponsible, given the harms that sometimes occur.
The sinister side of the algorithm
Last month five adverts from the Chinese online marketplace Temu were banned by the ASA for featuring “sexually graphic” images, including one that depicted a child.
Similar sexualised images of women also featured, with many of their faces cut off – accompanied by product listings for items including padded cycling underwear.
Showcased across a regional newspaper, a chess website and a language translation website, the ASA also responded to complaints that they were “inappropriately targeted”.
Just weeks later, a study from Adalytics highlights that tech giant Google had placed hundreds of adverts on questionable and ill-matched sites.
Elfbar: The smoke just didn’t fool the regulator
It wouldn’t be 2023, without a discussion about disposable vapes.
In adland, one advert for the brand Elfbar featuring the slogan “recycling for a greener future” provoked discussion after critics from Greenpeace and Hubbub lambasted it for greenwashing.
Hubbub’s Jack Hodgkiss described the vapes as “contender for the greenwash awards” due to the fact that the products can’t be disposed of in normal bins.
After an investigation the ASA ruled that the adverts were misleading because upon reading the words “Recycling for a greener future” consumers would expect the product to be easily recycled.
Advertising might be a game of persuasion but this year has certainly shown you can’t fool all the people all the time…
🚨 Shocking display of greenwash
Disposable vapes have created a huge waste problem that we can’t recycle our way out of.
The govt MUST #BanDisposableVapes to stop this waste. https://t.co/DqXddfikFb
— Greenpeace UK (@GreenpeaceUK) August 10, 2023
