Advertising Standards Authority releases latest Complaints Bulletin

Online (Influencer’s Social Media Account)

Advertising published on the Influencer’s Instagram account as a story featured some of the products from their own beauty range. One image included the label ‘Own Brand’ and other images included the company tag.

The complainant did not consider that the story images had been identified correctly as advertising material as they did not include the primary identification label #AD.

The Self Improvement Project

Online (Influencer’s Social Media)

Recognisability/ Misleading

The advertisement appeared as stories on the influencer’s Instagram account where they promoted their own fitness programme.

The complainant considered the advertising to be misleading as neither of the stories featured a label disclosing that they were advertisements, and that the influencer’s own brand was being promoted.

Upheld

3.31, 3.32, 4.1 and 4.4

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/leisure-40/

A post appeared on the influencer’s Instagram story that featured the advertisers’ hair oil product ‘Voduz R’Oil’. Above the product, the advertisers’ Instagram handle was tagged in a small font alongside the text ‘BAAd’.

The complainant considered that the use of the text ‘BAAd’ in a small font did not make it immediately clear that the posts were advertisements.

The advertising on the influencer’s Instagram account featured her showcasing leisurewear

clothing for the Human Collective brand.

The complainant said the items had not included the label #Ad and they considered the advertising to be misleading as the influencer had not indicated their

relationship with the brand.

A website offering private tuition for students said:

“Your card is only fully debited if {Name of tutor} accepts your request. The first lesson is free.”

The complainant felt the advertising claim that a card would only be fully debited if the selected tutor accepted their request was misleading. They said that when the requested tutor was not available, unsolicited offers from five other tutors were received

and the payment card was debited.

The advertisement appeared in a brochure accessible as a pdf online. It stated  “Over 20% of heat loss within the home occurs through old or outdated windows and doors, resulting in expensive home heating bills. .. by selecting Camden windows you could reduce your home heating bills by up to 40%.”

The complainant believed the advertisement was misleading due to the claim that over 20%

of heat loss in homes occurs through doors and windows. They believed that this figure was exaggerated and therefore the claim that a customer could reduce their hearing bills by 40% was misleading.

Vibes&Scribes

Email

Misleading

The advertisement was a promotional email from Vibes & Scribes. The title of the email was: “Win our Wool of the Month Giveaway”.

The email included the following wording:

“Wool of the Month

Part of the signature Cygnet range, Cygnet Aran is available in an array of beautiful shades, perfect for quick kid’s knits, ladies’ knitwear and men’s jumpers.”

The complainant considered the statement in the email advertising “Wool of the Month” as misleading as it was often used to describe products (such as the Cygnet Aran in the complained about advertising which is an acrylic yarn) that were not wool but synthetic yarn.

Upheld

4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/leisure-38/

The radio advertisement was for potential employment with the advertiser and the courses on offer with the school. It began with: –

“We have a fantastic opportunity to change the direction of your career”.

The advertisement also stated: – “We need trainee driving instructors for cars, trucks and buses. Full training is provided at a reduced rate, with a finance option available. If driving is your passion, then join our

exceptional team and have a career with ultimate job satisfaction.”

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they believed it gave the impression it was a recruitment campaign while they considered it

was actually a promotion for purchase of driving lessons.

Print Advertisement:

A magazine advertisement featured an image of a child pointing to bees on a beehive, while another image featured bees in the palm of a hand. Both people featured were not wearing protective clothing. The advertisement included the following statements:

“Our high quality Buckfast Queens are Bred and selected by our Buckfast Breeding Group” and “Our queens offer more honey per colony. Much better disease & parasite resistance.

Online Advertisement

The ‘Aims & Standards’ page of the advertiser’s website featured an image of a man with a mass of bees in his hand and bees on his bare stomach and shoulder.

Issue 1

The complainant believed that the claims that ‘Buckfast queens offer more honey per

colony’; that they had ‘better disease and parasite resistance than other breeds’, and the

more general claim that Buckfast bees offered “simpler and better Irish beekeeping” as misleading.

Issue 2

The complainant believed that the illustrative pictures used in the advertisements were irresponsible as they suggested that bees could be handled without safety equipment.

Upheld

4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.33

Issue 2:

3.24 (a) and 7.4 (c)

The advertisement was a listing on the advertiser’s own website for a ‘Carter Bunk Bed Pack’. The description of the bunk bed said, “Carter is a beautifully designed classic panel bunk bed with Seomra Mattresses”.

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as it implied that the price of the bunk beds included mattresses. After purchasing the beds, the complainant was asked if they wished to add mattresses to their order, and upon querying the matter, they were told it was a “typo”.

MyVehicle.ie

Online (Company Own Website) and Third-Party Website

Misleading / Promotional Marketing

The sponsored advertisement for Myvehicle.ie on a third-party website referred to the following: “Free VRT AND Nox Calculator”

The complainant said that upon viewing the sponsored advertisement on the third-party website and clicking through to the advertisers’ own website, there was no way of availing of the ‘free’ service advertised without paying €7.50.

Upheld

4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10 and 5.22

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/motoring-58/

A sponsored advertisement on Instagram said:

“Save €42 at beauty savers!”

The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as it

stated you were saving €42, however, upon clicking on the ‘Shop Now’ button, the product

was listed as €42 with an €18 saving from the RRP price of €60.

Richmond Marketing

Online (Advertisers’ Socia Media)

Principles / Alcoholic Drinks

The advertising was seen on the advertisers’ Instagram and consisted of three posts.

Post 1:

Onscreen text stated, “when somebody asks who wants to go

get a Four Loko Pink Melon?”. Beneath this, a baby in a nappy was depicted with their hand raised.

Post 3:

Onscreen text said, “How I sleep knowing I get to drink Four Loko all weekend”. Beneath this was a photograph of Squidward from ‘Spongebob Squarepants’ in bed asleep with a teddy bear.

Issue 1:

The complainant considered it inappropriate to use images depicting children and a cartoon character to promote alcohol.

Issue 2:

The complainant considered that the text in the third image, “How I sleep knowing I get to drink Four Loko all weekend”, encouraged irresponsible drinking.

Issues 1 and 2

Upheld

Issue 1: 9.07 (a), (b) and (d)

Issue 2: 3.03, 9.1 and 9.8a

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/alcohol-40//

The advertisement on the homepage of the advertisers’ own website featured an image of a woman dressed in a shirt which was tied at the front to replicate a crop top.

The woman was also wearing mini shorts with a tool belt around her waist, a hardhat on her head and a spirit level on her shoulder.

The complaint considered that the advertisement in question featured an image of a woman

dressed in attire that was overtly sexualized.

The advertisement was heard on national radio and promoted the advertisers’ new gambling service.

The complainant considered that the advertisement breached section 10.10 of the Code as it did not direct people to a source of information about gambling and gambling responsibly.

The advertisement appeared as a sponsored post on Facebook and stated “Imagine Having Teachers This Good Every Day – Only At Ashfield College”.

The complainant considered that the advertisement implied that teachers in

other educational institutions were inferior in some way. They said this claim was misleading.

A paid partnership between Colour Wow and the influencer on Instagram showed the

influencer describing Colour Wow’s Money Mist leave-in conditioner spray. The influencer stated that the product was “The perfect mist for my fine hair!”

The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading on the grounds that the

influencer was promoting a hair product, stating it was good for her fine hair, without disclosing that she had hair extensions.

The advertisement was seen on the advertisers’ own website and invited people to become

a member of their organisation. One of the reasons listed for joining was a letter of support from them for access to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme

(ACRES).

The complainant considered the advertisement misleading as they said that only breed

societies were eligible to provide such letters of support for the DAFM ACRES.

https://adstandards.ie/complaint/miscellaneous-7/

Both a radio advertisement and YouTube advertisement

featured a teacher or instructor character holding a ‘burglar bootcamp’. They were instructing a group on how to effectively burgle houses. A second voiceover stated “Get the alarm that burglars fear the most”.

Two complaints were received.

The complainant against the radio advertisement

considered that the accent of the burglar character was offensive as it equated a North

Dublin / working class Dublin accent with criminality and perpetuated stereotypes against people with certain accents.

The complaint against the YouTube advertisement claimed that the content of the

advertisement was an example of ‘accentism’.

An online advertisement for a promotion at the Cheltenham Festival stated “Cheltenham Festival. NON-RUNNER NO BET. All Championship Races”

The footnote at the bottom stated

“Applies to all Antepost bets placed on any Championship race at the 2024 Cheltenham

Festival”. 

The complainant placed a bet on a Cheltenham race called the ‘Champion Bumper’ and

when their horse did not run, they tried to avail of the refund as per the advertisement but

were advised that the race they bet on was not a championship bet. As the advertisement

had stated “all championship races”, and the race they placed the bet on was called the ‘Champion Bumper’, they considered the advertisement was misleading.