ASA Finds Ad For Horror Film Not In Breach of Code
The Advertising Standards Authority okayed an advertisement for the new film Saw IV that featured a man’s severed head, even though the agency received numerous complaints. Distributor Lions Gate defended the ad, saying that it was intended to be “tongue in cheek” (ouch) and that most of the blood originally on the poster had been “cleaned up” to make it more acceptable. The ASA ruled that the ad was not likely to offend adults and did not go beyond the bounds usual for a horror film.
Said the ASA:
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted that a small proportion of the complaints stated that children had found the ad disturbing. We considered that, although the ad was likely to be distasteful to some, the image was unlikely to be considered explicitly horrific and unlikely to cause offence or distress, either to children or adults.2. Not upheld
We noted that the ad showed the head in a weighing scale. We considered, however, that the ad contained nothing else in the way of blood or gore that might be expected in an ad for a horror film and considered that although older children might see the ad, younger children were less likely to see it in this media. We did not consider it was likely to cause offence or distress, either to children or adults.3. Not upheld
We considered that, although the posters appeared in cinemas, where children of all ages were likely to see them, the ad was unlikely to be considered explicitly horrific by either the children or adults who saw the posters and unlikely to cause offence or distress to them.4. Not upheld
We considered that, although the magazine featured films of interest to children, the ad was unlikely to be considered explicitly horrific by either the child or adult readers and unlikely to cause offence or distress to them.5. Not upheld
We noted the safeguards described by the websites but did not consider they could ensure in themselves that children would not see the ad. Nevertheless, we considered the ad was unlikely to be considered explicitly horrific by either the children or adults that saw it and was unlikely to cause offence or distress to them.On points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 5.1 (Decency) and 9.1 (Fear and distress) but did not find it in breach.