The Advertising Standards Authority ASA has not upheld 75 complaints – including from Adfree Cities and Carbon Tracker – which claimed a TV ad for oil giant Shell gave a misleading impression of its environmental impact.
Created by London agency VML, the ad featured a person dressed in overalls walking through a number of different scenes, including different rooms in a house that represented activities which Shell is engaged.
The woman walked past EV charging points being installed, an offshore gas rig followed by a kitchen representative of where the gas from that rig was ultimately delivered to, and a laboratory labelled “Energy Transition Skills Hub”, which included scenes of miniature windfarms and engineers welding materials together.
Responding to the complaints, Shell said that “the intention of the ad was to highlight to consumers the ways Shell was helping to meet the UK’s energy needs today, and into the future.” The firm also highlighted that it clearly showed the importance of gas extraction and supply to its business within the clip.
The ASA ruled that: “it was clear from the ad that Shell was involved in both higher and lower carbon activity and through qualifying information that the majority of Shell’s investments comprised oil and gas, and to what degree. The ad had therefore not given a misleading overall impression of Shell’s environmental impact.”
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning
Total Energies ad banned for green claims
An ad for the French oil company has been banned by the ASA after Adfree Cities challenged whether it was misleading as it omitted material information about the overall environmental impact of its business activities.
Shown on X, the clip featured an introductory caption that stated, “Uncover how TotalEnergies’ electricity start-up accelerator program has supported start-ups like Nash Renewables”.
A video embedded in the post detailed TotalEnergies’ work with the company NASH Renewables and included images of wind turbines and people working in an office.
The ASA ruled the ad must not appear again unless significantly reworked to include balanced information about Total Energies’ oil and gas activities, which account for the lion’s share of its business.
Belle Baby sanctioned for sexualised marketing of a young child
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint against baby product retailer Belle Baby, finding that one of its online ads portrayed a child in a sexual way.
The ad in question contained an image of a young girl wearing a swimsuit, popping her hip to one side and looking down at a bow on the side of the swimsuit.
Describing the ad in further detail, the regulator said: “The girl was aged around five or six years. She appeared to be wearing eye shadow, heavy mascara and lipstick and had her long hair styled in curls. She was standing in a pose in which her hip was popped to one side, her back was arched, and her eyes were downcast to look at a bow sewn on to the hip of her swimsuit, which she was also holding with one hand.”
This pose was considered unnatural for a model of that age, being typically associated with adults. As such, the ASA concluded the ad breached rules around sexualised marketing of under 18s. The retailer has complied with the ruling and has removed the advert.
ASA finds ticket reseller Viagogo misled public about face-value tickets
A podcast ad by ticket reselling platform Viagogo has been banned amid claims it grossly exaggerated the number of tickets resold at face value on its website.
Appearing during an episode of the Political Currency podcast, the ad claimed that “over half the events listed on Viagogo had tickets selling below face value”.
The ASA found this claim to be misleading as Viagogo automatically adds a 20% increase to the ticket price to account for booking fees, service charges, delivery fees or any other charges the original ticket purchaser may have paid. In addition to that 20% increase, Viagogo also adds a delivery fee to the purchase, once the consumer has selected their preferred delivery method.
Concluding, the regulator found the disparity between the ticket price and Viagogo’s “definition” of face value did not reflect what consumers might reasonably expect. The ad was banned in its current form.
