Cell C has come out on top following a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that its advertisement, which depicts a man having his leg repeatedly mounted by a dog, does not contravene certain sections of the Code of Advertising Practice. This is despite the fact that it had previously been reported that over one hundred complaints about the ad were received by the ASA. Ultimately, only twenty-eight of those were considered by the self-regulatory body.

The advertisement shows the dog humping the man’s leg every time he makes a purchase, experiences loadshedding or passes under an etoll gantry. However, once he enters a Cell C store, the dog immediately leaves him alone. According to Cell C, the advertisement is intended to show how consumers are being taken advantage of and how Cell C will not do the same.  Instead, it ruffled more than a few feathers and led to multiple complaints being lodged with the ASA for being offensive, harmful to children and for reasons involving animal cruelty.

In its ruling, the ASA accepted that the commercial contains a sexual metaphor, one which might make some members of the public feel uncomfortable or which they might find crass. However, that was not sufficient to find that it would cause widespread offence. The ASA was satisfied that the message was that Cell C products offer value for money in comparison to other products and services and that the metaphor would not be lost on the average consumer.

Insofar as certain of the complaints had accused the advertisement of being harmful to children, the ASA was satisfied with an undertaking from Cell C not to flight the advertisement during any children’s programming. The ASA was also provided with a certificate from an animal welfare organisation which had been present during the shooting of the commercial to the effect that the dog that starred in it, Rosie, had been treated humanely both on and off set. Indeed, it appeared that a puppet had stood in for Rosie insofar as the actual “humping action” was concerned and, as such, her dignity had remained intact.

The ruling reflects the ASA’s common sense approach to complaints regarding allegedly offensive advertising. Even where multiple complaints are lodged by some viewers, the likely perception of the average reasonable viewer will be the deciding factor and an ad will only be pulled if it is likely to cause widespread offence. Of course, the ruling also shows that every dog has its day.

For more information, contact Kelly Thompson, partner at Adams & Adams, Kelly.thompson@adamsadams.com telephone 012 432 6298, or Dineo Modibedi, dineo.modibedi@adamsadams.com associate at Adams & Adams, telephone 012 432 6377