A Twix chocolate advert has been banned for encouraging unsafe driving, the Promoting Requirements Authority (ASA) has dominated.
The advert, referred to as Two Is Extra Than One and proven on each TV and Video on Demand, reveals a person driving a automotive whereas being adopted, earlier than placing the hand brake on, swerving to the right-hand aspect of the street and breaking by a metallic barrier.
A person is seen contained in the automotive falling down a rocky hill, earlier than the automobile is then proven the wrong way up however positioned on high of an equivalent automotive on the backside of the hill.
5 complaints that the adverts inspired harmful driving and have been irresponsible have been made to the ASA.
Picture:
Pic: TWIX / YouTube
Mars Wrigley Confectionery – who personal Twix – argued the advert “was set in a separate world that was absurd, fantastical and removed from reality,” and stated they made positive the acts depicted “would be impossible to recreate”.
However whereas the ASA acknowledged the advert contained “some clearly fantastical elements,” it upheld the complaints and dominated the adverts “must not appear again in their current form”.
“We considered the road was clearly realistic,” it wrote in its ruling, earlier than including: “The scenes have been depicted as a chase with the emphasis on velocity. As well as, the primary man was then proven placing the handbrake on and the automotive swerved off the street leaving seen skid marks.
“We considered the emphasis on a chase, and the speed inherent to that, and the driving manoeuvres featured would be dangerous and irresponsible if emulated in real life on a public highway.”
One other ruling from the ASA additionally banned a Diesel clothes advert that featured mannequin Katie Worth.
It drew 13 complaints, with some believing it objectified and sexualised ladies, difficult whether or not it was offensive, dangerous and irresponsible.
Others challenged whether or not the advert was irresponsible as Ms Worth appeared “unhealthily thin”.
Whereas Diesel argued “the image was a celebration of Ms Price’s sexuality and empowerment” and famous it was a part of a wider marketing campaign, the ASA upheld the primary criticism.
It stated that the positioning of the purse within the advert “had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts,” and due to this fact “sexualised her in a way that objectified her” and was “likely to cause serious offence”.
The ASA didn’t discover that the advert depicted Ms Worth in a means “to make her appear unhealthily thin”.
It stated the advert should not seem once more within the type complained of.
