BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Welcome to Canterbury, a programme broadcast by CTV at 9.00am on 10 August 1993,

provided tourist information about some aspects of life in Canterbury and referred to a

number of local business enterprises.

The Secretary of the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor (GOAL), Mr Turner,

complained to Canterbury Television Ltd that advertisements for eight liquor outlets

during the programme of about 30 minutes constituted saturation advertising. 

Moreover, as four of the advertisements appeared consecutively, that amounted to

another breach of the standards. By broadcasting liquor advertisements at 9.00am, GOAL

continued, the programme breached the ASA Code for Advertising Liquor.

Arguing that the programme lasted 57 minutes – not 30 – and that the components were

not liquor advertisements, CTV denied that any of the standards had been breached.

Dissatisfied with CTV's decision, GOAL referred the saturation aspect of the complaint to

the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

Mr Cliff Turner, the Secretary of GOAL, complained to CTV about the programme

Welcome to Canterbury broadcast at 9.00am on 10 August. He complained that eight of

the advertisements included in the programme of about 30 minutes contained verbal and

visual reference to alcohol and thus the broadcast amounted to the saturation of liquor

promotions. In addition, he noted that four of the advertisements were consecutive which

breached the prohibition on the consecutive broadcast of liquor advertisements.

Furthermore, as the programme was broadcast at 9.00am, it contravened the

requirement that liquor advertisements be screened only between 9.00pm and 6.00am.

Explaining that the programme lasted nearly one hour (57 minutes) rather than 30

minutes, CTV denied that the saturation of liquor promotions had taken place.

Furthermore, it did not accept that the named components were liquor advertisements,

adding that the correct definition of the named segments was at present an issue before

the Advertising Standards Complaints Board.

When he referred GOAL's complaint to the Authority, Mr Turner argued that two earlier

decisions from the Authority (Nos: 90/93 and 125/93) implied that the components he

referred to were in fact liquor advertisements.

The Authority would note that both of these decisions refer to the broadcast of Welcome to

Canterbury on 18 February 1993 and subsequent changes to the Broadcasting Act mean

that they have little relevance to the present complaint.

Pursuant to the Broadcasting Amendment Act 1993, the jurisdiction for complaints about

advertisements was transferred from the Broadcasting Standards Authority to the

Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB). For example, the ASCB is now responsible

for the aspect of this complaint that liquor advertisements were screened at a time when

such items were prohibited. Nevertheless, the Authority has retained some important

functions with regard to liquor promotion and GOAL complained to the Authority that

Welcome to Canterbury breached standard A1 of the Programme Standards for the

Promotion of Liquor. It reads:

A1   Saturation of liquor promotions, separately or in combination, must be

avoided. In addition, liquor advertisements shall not be broadcast

consecutively in any one break.

The standards also contain a number of definitions, two of which read:

"Saturation" refers to a degree of exposure which gives the impression that liquor

promotion is dominating that viewing or listening period.

"Liquor promotions" for the purpose of this code are:

* liquor advertisements

* sponsorship advertisements by liquor advertisers

* programme sponsorship credits by liquor advertisers; and

* trailers for programmes and event sponsored by liquor advertisers.

In view of the definition of "liquor promotions", the Authority was required to decide on

this occasion whether the item contained a saturation of liquor advertisements.

However, CTV denied that the promotions were liquor advertisements and because of the

ASCB's jurisdiction, the Authority decided to await that Board's decision on the definitional

point. GOAL had listed eight specific advertisements in the programme Welcome to

Canterbury which it maintained were liquor advertisements.

In decisions on Complaints 93/204 and 93/234 reached at its meeting on 1 February

1994, the ASCB examined a number of the segments of the programme Welcome to

Canterbury. The segments on which it adjudicated included the eight advertisements listed

by GOAL and, using the definition of "liquor advertisements" contained in the Advertising

Standards Authority's Code for Advertising Liquor, the ASCB concluded that only two of

the listed advertisements were in fact liquor advertisements. In reaching that conclusion,

it made the following general comment:

The Board was mindful that by definition a liquor advertisement could promote

liquor by product or outlet... . Accordingly, in relation to the other advertisements,

the primary consideration for the Board was whether liquor was promoted by

outlet. The advertisement must place a degree of emphasis on the availability of

liquor from the establishment before the Board would rule that the advertisement

promoted liquor by outlet.

Rather than list the Board's reasoning about all the individual components of the

broadcast of which GOAL complained, the Authority has included two examples, one

where the Board decided that the advertisement placed a degree of emphasis on the

availability of liquor to the extent that the advertisement promoted liquor by outlet and

one where it did not.

The Jolly Poacher

The Board was of the view that the advertisement for the Jolly Poacher was a

liquor advertisement. Food was not mentioned in the advertisement and the

activities shown in the advertisement all took place in a bar in which liquor was

being served. The Jolly Poacher was promoted primarily as a place from which

liquor was available.

Hanmer Lodge Hotel

The Board was of the view that the advertisement for the Hanmer Lodge Hotel did

not constitute a liquor advertisement. The emphasis in the advertisement was on

dining and overall entertainment. The focus on the bottles of wine was not

necessary but did not, however, convert the advertisement to a liquor

advertisement.

In view of the ASCB's jurisdiction on the matter, the Authority was prepared to accept its

conclusion, especially because of the ASCB's emphasis on the purposes of the advertisements

to which its definition applies.

Having accepted the ASCB's interpretation as to which of the advertisements were liquor

advertisements, the Authority decided without hesitation that two liquor advertisements in

the programme which lasted nearly one hour did not amount to saturation in

contravention of standard A1. Moreover, as the two advertisements were not broadcast

consecutively, the broadcast did not amount to a breach of the other aspect of standard A1.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
10 March 1994

Appendix

GOAL's Complaint to Canterbury Television Limited

In a letter dated 23 August 1993, the Secretary of the Group Opposed to Advertising of

Liquor (GOAL), Mr Cliff Turner, complained to Canterbury Television Ltd about the

programme Welcome to Canterbury broadcast at 9.00am on 10 August.

Pointing out that the programme contained advertisements for eight liquor outlets which

contained visual and verbal references to liquor, GOAL maintained that eight such

advertisements in about 30 minutes constituted saturation advertising in breach of the

standards. Moreover, as four of the advertisements were broadcast consecutively, that

amounted to another breach. By broadcasting liquor advertisements at 9.00am, GOAL

continued, the programme breached rule 2 of the Advertising Standards Authority's Code

for Advertising Liquor.

CTV's Response to the Formal Complaint

CTV advised GOAL of its decision in a letter dated 18 November 1993.

Denying that eight references to liquor outlets in a programme which lasted 57 minutes

(not 30) constituted saturation advertising, CTV nevertheless did not accept that the

components complained about amounted to liquor advertisements. CTV concluded:

You will be aware that the Advertising Standards Authority is at this moment

considering the question of the Welcome to Canterbury programme, with a view to

determining what if any items within it offend against the pertinent standards.

We will be guided by the Authority in determining the composition of any future

programme of Welcome to Canterbury.

GOAL's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with CTV's decision, in a letter dated 23 November 1993 Mr Turner on GOAL's

behalf referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Pointing out that the letter of complaint mentioned a period of "about 30 minutes", Mr

Turner referred to two of the Broadcasting Standards Authority's earlier decisions on

complaints about Welcome to Canterbury (Nos: 90/93 and 125/93), which contained an

implication that the components complained about were, in fact, liquor advertisements.

CTV's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint. Its

letter is dated 24 November 1993 and CTV's response, 9 December.

CTV maintained that the programme segments complained about did not constitute

advertisements. It reported that the issue was before the Advertising Standards Complaints

Board and enclosed a copy of its submission to that Board.

In conclusion, it noted:

We currently await the Board's findings and would expect, subject to those

findings, to cooperate with the Board to format Welcome to Canterbury so as to

comply with its conclusions.

GOAL's Final Comment to the Authority

When asked to comment on CTV's reply, in a letter dated 17 December 1993 on GOAL's

behalf Mr Turner asked, if the programme did not contain "proper" advertisements, were

they paid for in "proper" money?

Mr Turner maintained that, under Decision No: 125/93, the segments complained about

were liquor advertisements and that the Act did not contain the dispensation CTV now

sought.