A number of complaints were made to the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) against FNB's "Steve" campaign which was flighted on radio and television and published on billboards. The theme for the campaign focussed on how people should "un-Steve” themselves by moving to FNB rather than suffering the frustrations they currently endure with other banks.

The complaints alleged that the campaign was offensive in that-

• it was insulting to any person named Steve as it portrays such people as idiots, boring and dull, which might cause such people to have self-esteem issues; and
• it was insulting and might cause little boys to be nasty and tease other boys who are named Steve. Some of the complainants alleged that their children (called Steve) were already the subject of teasing at school.

FNB submitted that the "un-Steve yourself" campaign was not discriminatory of people named Steve and that it was founded on the brand equity gained from the previous "Steve from the Beep Bank” campaign and was intended to spark consumers’ re-evaluation of their choice of bank.

The ASA Directorate recognised that some members of the public who are named "Steve" or who have friends and family named "Steve" may find the advertisements insensitive. However, the ASA has always held that it cannot take into account sensitivities borne of particular life experience and must always consider a matter objectively, from the viewpoint of the hypothetical reasonable person. This standard measure is used to achieve neutral perspective that is neither hypercritical nor over sensitive.

The Directorate ruled that the use of the name "Steve" in the campaign should be looked upon in the context of the service being advertised. There was nothing in the advertisements that unduly imposed any burden or obligation on those who are named Steve in general, nor was there anything that withheld any benefit or service from them. As such, it was satisfied that the manner in which the name Steve was used in the advertisements was not in contravention of the ASA Code.

However, with regard to the potential harm to children, the Directorate said that it was the responsibility of advertisers to prepare advertisements with a sense of responsibility towards consumers and that, when considering complaints relating to children, it had to be mindful that children have different perspectives and do not necessarily react the same way that adults would.

Despite FNB's assertion that the advertisements could be associated with the previous "Steve" campaign, the Directorate was of the opinion that the manner in which Steve was portrayed in the current campaign was different and might not necessarily conjure up the previous "Steve from the Beep Bank” character in the minds of children. The previous "Steve from the Beep Bank” was a specific individual or character, whereas the "Steve” referred to in the current campaign was any Steve, which translates to anybody (child or adult) named Steve. It ruled that the reference to the name Steve in general and the way that he was portrayed in the current campaign might have a negative influence on children as they interact on playgrounds, which may result in children who are named Steve being bullied as they might be regarded as stupid, because of the messages contained in the advertisements.

For this reason, the advertisements were found to be in contravention of the ASA Code. FNB was ordered to immediately withdraw the advertisements.

Two of the complainants decided to appeal the Directorate's ruling on the basis that that the Directorate found the advertisements did not infringe the rights of adults named Steve.

The appellants argued that the advertisements were offensive against public values in that they created an offensive association with a name "like Steve” which is heard by and adopted by millions of third parties as their primary insult. In addition, it is harmful, because it creates a many versus few scenario, which is very similar to racism in the way it operates. The appellants alleged that there was wide spread concern that the adverts offended the memory of Steve Biko.

The appellants further argued that the advertisements impacted on the appellant’s human dignity, because it led to others thinking less of the name "Steve". They argued that people with the name Steve should be considered as a group by virtue of their birth and therefore can be discriminated against as a group.

The Appeal Committee observed that none of the advertising seen by it had referred to Steve as an idiot or as stupid. While the appellants had argued that this is an implication which could be drawn from the advertisements, the Appeal Committee found that on an objective basis this cannot be the case and therefore, the implications that the appellants contended for were very subjective.

It found that the characteristic of "Steve of Beep bank" is that he is not fully informed of all the services available in banking and the "Un-Steve Yourself campaign” is a call to action to people to become better informed.

Ultimately the Appeal Committee dismissed the appeal, finding that the campaign was not offensive and that it was not necessary to test the reasonableness of the advertising.

By Webber Wentzel