Doritos / Ms D Horn & Another
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Deborah Horn & Another	Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Simba (Pty) Ltd	Respondent

15 Nov 2004

Consumer complaints were lodged against a Simba television commercial for Doritos chips.

The commercial depicts, inter alia, a young man walking up to a podium to receive his diploma during a graduation ceremony, and then kissing a teacher who is standing on the podium. After the kiss, he puts a chip in her mouth.

COMPLAINTS
The complainants are of the opinion that the commercial:

• Portrays sexual harassment of a staff member by a student as hip, cool and groovy.
  
  
• Is offensive and in bad taste.
  
  
• Is unnecessarily aimed at impressionable youth.

RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
In light of the complaints the following clauses of the Code were taken into account:

• Section II, Clause 1 – Offensive advertising

• Section II, Clause 3.3 – Legality

• Section II, Clause 14 - Children

RESPONSE
The advertising agency Net#work BBDO, on behalf of the respondent, submits, inter alia, that:

• The scene of kissing must be kept in context. This part of the commercial is in the imagination of the student and not part of the real life scene. This is evidenced by the sudden change in music; the slightly blurred images; the change in appearance of the actors; wild hair, flowing clothes etc; the response of the lady who passionately embraces the student; and the sudden ending of the imagination and a back to reality flash.
  
  
• This fantasy does not include an assault where the lady is an unwilling participant, but depicts the lady being keen and willing to kiss the student. In realit, however, all he actually does is place a chip in her mouth and saunter away.
  
  
• No violent sexual act is shown.
  
  
• The Code calls for more than one or two persons subjective opinion when assessing if an commercial is offensive or not. The complainants have lodged their complaints as individuals and not as part of representative body or interest group. There thus appears to be no defined sectoral group of South Africans, which the complainants are representing and accordingly it can be said that no sectoral offence has occurred.
  
  
• The complaints are isolated and only two members of the public have seen fit to complain.
  
  
• The formal target market for Dorito’s is young adults in the 16 to 24 years of age with a “bull-eye” of 19 years. The commercial is targeted at this group. There is nothing in the commercial which compromises children’s safety, exploits children’s credulity or lack of experience, portrays them as sexually appealing or contravenes the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
  
  
• It apologises to the complainants, as there was no intention to cause individual offence.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
At a meeting held on 23 September 2004 the Directorate considered the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

Clause 1 of Section II states, inter alia, that the fact that a particular product, service or advertisement may be offensive to some is not in itself sufficient grounds for upholding an objection to an advertisement for that product or service. In considering whether an advertisement is offensive, consideration will be given, inter alia, to the context, medium, likely audience, the nature of the product or service, prevailing standards, degree of social concern, and public interest.

The offence caused by this commercial arises from the kiss that the student gives to a female member of staff.

The Directorate notes the respondent’s submission that the student is fantasising about embracing and kissing his lecturer.

It is not necessarily clear from the context of the commercial that the kiss is meant to be a fantasy. The execution is, however, of such a nature that it is unlikely that the reasonable viewer, who is neither hypercritical nor hypersensitive, would interpret the commercial literally as a condonation of students kissing unwilling lecturers. The commercial does not reasonably suggest that the the lecturer is an unwilling participant, but depicts the lecturer as being keen and willing to kiss the student, which is evident from the response of the lecturer who passionately embraces the student.

Given this take-out, the reasonable viewer would not find the commercial offensive.

No indication of serious offence has been demonstrated.

The Directorate further notes that only two complaints were received despite wide exposure of the commercial on television. It can therefore not be said that there is widespread or sectoral offence.

In light of the reasonable interpretation of the commercial, the offence in the commercial appears to be neither sectoral, nor widespread Accordingly, it does not appear that the commercial is offensive within the meaning of the Code.

Based on the above the commercial is not in contravention of Clause 1 of Section II.

The Directorate notes the complainant’s submission that the commercial portrays sexual harassment of a staff member by a student as hip, cool and groovy.

A reasonable consumer, however, when judging the commercial objectively would not regard the commercial as promoting sexual assault as the lady is not an unwilling participant, but the commercial depicts her as willing to kiss the student.

Based on the above the commercial is not in contravention of Clause 3.3 of Section II of the Code as there is no sexual harassment or assault portrayed in the commercial.

The Directorate notes the respondent’s submissions that the commercial is not aimed at children, but at young adults in the 16-24 years age group. There is also ex facie nothing in the commercial that compromises children’s safety, exploits their credulity, portrays them as sexually appealing in a situation of sexual innuendo.

As the commercial is not aimed at children, and contains no explicit sexual conduct that is inappropriate for children to see, the commercial is also not in contravention Clause 14 of Section II of the Code.

The complaint is dismissed.