Life InsuranceAug 4 2021

ASA steps in over inappropriately scheduled life insurance ad

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
ASA steps in over inappropriately scheduled life insurance ad
Photo by Ketut Subiyanto via Pexels

Turner Entertainment Networks International has been censured by the Advertising Standards Agency for running a life insurance advert about death in the middle of children's cartoon scheduling.

The TV ad for life insurance broker Polly was broadcast on Cartoon Network between 8am and 7pm on April 22, 2021 during episodes of ‘The Amazing World of Gumball’ and ‘ThunderCats Roar!’.

According to the ASA, the life insurance advert showed a mother playing with her two infant children, with messaging implying the mother could die suddenly.

A voice-over stated, “The doctor brought me in and he said ‘You have got blood clots in your lungs, if you’d have left it a day or two longer, you wouldn’t be here anymore’.

"You’ve always got in the back of your mind when you’ve been through something like that, or you were so close to being taken away from your babies, what if this happens again?"

Polly said that younger children were highly unlikely to understand the medical statement.

The life insurance advert also said: "What can I put in place to protect my kids? And that is everything that being a parent is about is protecting your children, and that shouldn’t stop when you die. So mothers, if you are watching this and you don’t have life insurance, go to polly.co.uk, get a free quote, and get it sorted now."

The ad was cleared by Clearcast without a scheduling restriction.

Two complainants, who believed that Polly's discussion of a parent dying would cause distress to children, and was therefore inappropriate to be shown during children’s programming, challenged whether Polly's life insurance advert was inappropriately scheduled.

Responding to the ASA, Candid Insurance Services Ltd, trading as Polly, said the ad did not discuss a parent dying.

According to the ASA, "Polly said that younger children were highly unlikely to understand the medical statement and that the person did not die nor use the term 'die' or 'death' when describing the event. They said older children were aware of what doctors are and that people get sick.

"Polly said life insurance protected families financially and that the ad overwhelmingly discussed protecting children."

Responses to the investigation

Also responding to the ASA's investigation into the complaints, Turner Entertainment Networks International Ltd, trading as Cartoon Network, said Clearcast's advice for the ad was followed and it did not see a reason that would prevent the life insurance ad from being scheduled at the respective times on Cartoon Network.

In its response, Turner believed the ad conveyed a positive message about life insurance, claiming "the ad showed the children happy in their loving, home environment and there were no distressing scenes that could cause harm or offence.

"They said the mother was shown to be healthy, responsible and caring about herself and her children", according to the ASA.

Similarly, Clearcast did not believe the ad required an ex-kids restriction, which would have meant it should not be shown in or around programmes made for, specifically targeted, or likely to be of particular appeal to children.

According to the ASA, Clearcast said the woman featured was not talking to the camera or in front of the children featured in the ad.

Rather, it was a separate voice-over which outlined her previous concerns about her health condition and the fact that she believed that being a parent was about protecting your children and that that should not stop when you die.

Clearcast said they had since applied a flag to the ad to ask broadcasters to consider scheduling it away from programmes for under 10-year-olds and to alert them that the ad contained references to death or someone dying.

BCAP Code breach

However, the ASA considered that the life insurance advert had a solemn tone and a realistic setting, with references to an incident of a parent experiencing a life-threatening health crisis and to the possibility of a parent dying.

In its ruling, the ASA stated: "The ad used language which we considered simple enough that the ad’s message would be understood by young children.

"One of the complainants explained that their child had been distressed about the death of her parent after viewing the ad. We considered the ad could be distressing to young children, but that it would be suitable for older children to see. The ad therefore needed to be sensitively scheduled.

"The ad was cleared without a scheduling restriction that would have restricted it from being broadcast in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.

"However, we understood that Clearcast had since flagged the ad as one which broadcasters should consider scheduling away from programmes for under 10-year-olds, which we considered was sufficient."

We considered those watching would expect ads to be scheduled with the children’s audience in mind and were unlikely to expect to see ads which could distress young children.--ASA ruling

According to the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code), there is a general responsibility on broadcasters to ensure they exercise responsible judgement on the scheduling of ads, and that they operate internal systems capable of identifying and avoiding unsuitable juxtapositions between advertising material and programmes, especially those that could distress or offend viewers.

The BCAP Code also states that adverts which are suitable for older children but could distress younger children must be sensitively scheduled.

As a result, the ASA found the scheduling of the ad breached BCAP Code rules 5.1 (Children) and 32.1 (Scheduling of television and radio advertisements).

The ASA ruling added:  "We also considered the ad’s broadcast at 8.00 am in particular was at a time when young children might be watching TV by themselves.

"We considered those watching would expect ads to be scheduled with the children’s audience in mind and were unlikely to expect to see ads which could distress young children. For those reasons, we considered the ad had been inappropriately scheduled."

simoney.kyriakou@ft.com