Food and beverage advertising was back in the spotlight in August, and we're starting to wonder – are Australians just hangry and taking it out on the ads?
Of the 25 Ad Standards decisions handed down in August, a whopping 11 involved advertising in the food and beverage category. And one advertiser in particular was serving up more than its fair share of controversy.
Spotlight Advertiser: Pizza Hut – How Bad Do You Want Good?
Taking out our (unofficial) award for Spotlight Advertiser of the Month was Pizza Pan Group Pty Ltd (better known as Pizza Hut), with three complaints arising from its latest advertising campaign, featuring the recurring tagline "HOW BAD DO YOU WANT GOOD?"
Three complaints in one month is an impressive effort. It does make us wonder whether there's a record for the most Ad Standards complaints against a single advertiser in a month – and, if so, whether it's worn as a badge of honour in certain creative departments.
Was Pizza Hut deliberately going for a shock-and-awe strategy? Or do Australians simply have it in for food advertisers?
Whatever the intention, the three determinations make for some interesting reading – particularly when you compare the outcomes.
1. The Doctor, the Child and the Pizza – No Breach
The first advertisement features a medical practitioner helping themselves to pizza that has been delivered to a child with both arms suspended in plaster casts.
The complaint suggested that the advertisement depicted someone withholding potentially “lifesaving care” and empathy, all for a slice of pizza.
Relevant provision: Section 2.6 (Health and Safety) of the AANA Code of Ethics.
Now, we can probably all appreciate the lengths someone might go to for a really good slice of pizza. Fortunately for Pizza Hut, the Ad Standards Community Panel also appreciated the humour.
The Panel determined that the child was not depicted as being in an emergency situation and recognised the fanciful, exaggerated nature of the scenario.
Outcome: No breach.
2. The Campfire, the Pizza and the Man on Fire – No Breach
The second advertisement takes things up a notch.
A man arrives at a campfire carrying three boxes of pizza. As he leans over to grab a slice, he catches fire. His fellow campers proceed to enjoy their pizza while he runs around engulfed in flames in the background.
The advertisement also included this rather memorable disclaimer:
"Filmed under controlled conditions with no one harmed. Do not try this at home. Except the pizza bit."
Relevant provisions: Sections 2.3 (Violence) and 2.6 (Health and Safety) of the AANA Code of Ethics.
Once again, Pizza Hut escaped a breach finding.
The Panel's consideration of violence focused on the absence of purposeful harm or malicious intent. The exaggerated and absurd nature of the scene was also important, with the disclaimer reinforcing the humorous tone of the advertisement.
Outcome: No breach.
We did find this one particularly interesting.
You could arguably identify a touch of malice in happily eating pizza while your friend runs around on fire in the background. But apparently, when pizza is involved, the normal rules of friendship (and perhaps basic human decency) go out the window.
Ultimately, the humour and absurdity of the situation appeared to carry the day.
3. The Pizza, the Pills and the Medical Emergency – Breach
For its third appearance before the Panel, Pizza Hut stuck with the same "HOW BAD DO YOU WANT GOOD?" tagline – but this time, it went a slice too far.
The advertisement depicts a man rolling around on the ground, apparently experiencing a medical emergency. He drops both a bottle of pills and a box of pizza.
A woman approaches and, rather than picking up the pills and assisting him, chooses to eat his pizza.
Relevant provision: Section 2.6 (Health and Safety) of the AANA Code of Ethics.
This time, the Panel found that the advertisement breached the Code.
The distinction appeared to lie in the Panel's view that the medical emergency depicted was a situation that could realistically occur, and that the humour and exaggeration were insufficient to justify the woman's failure to assist.
Outcome: Breach.
And this is where we start scratching our heads.
We find this determination somewhat difficult to reconcile with the previous two – particularly the man-on-fire advertisement.
Certainly, a person experiencing a medical emergency and requiring medication is a realistic scenario. But so too is someone accidentally catching fire.
The absurdity, surely, lies not just in the emergency itself, but in the response of the people around them.
Is choosing to eat someone's pizza rather than handing them potentially lifesaving medication really any less fanciful than sitting around enjoying pizza while your friend runs around engulfed in flames?
In our view, both scenarios are equally ridiculous when considered in their entirety.
The three determinations provide an interesting illustration of how context, humour and exaggeration are assessed under the AANA Code of Ethics – and just how fine the line can be between an advertisement that is considered acceptable and one that crosses it.
The takeaway? Humour can be a powerful defence when advertising pushes the boundaries, but it certainly isn't a guaranteed free pass. And, as these decisions demonstrate, the distinction between acceptable absurdity and unacceptable depictions of unsafe behaviour isn't always easy to predict.
Elsewhere in August: E-Bikes Still Causing Trouble
Pizza wasn't the only thing keeping the Ad Standards Community Panel busy.
E-bikes continue to feature prominently in health and safety complaints, with three August decisions involving advertising by e-bike manufacturer Flightrisk.
All three concerned depictions of dangerous e-bike practices, reinforcing the ongoing scrutiny of advertising that features potentially unsafe riding behaviour.
It's another reminder for advertisers that showcasing a product in action – particularly one involving speed, movement or an element of risk – requires careful consideration of the behaviours being depicted.
Even where the intention is to demonstrate excitement, adventure or product capability, advertisers need to be mindful of the safety messages their creative execution may convey.
Final Thoughts
August's decisions delivered plenty of food for thought (and an unusually strong craving for pizza).
For us, the most interesting aspect was the contrasting outcomes across Pizza Hut's three advertisements. While the Panel clearly recognised the role of humour and exaggeration, the decisions demonstrate that the application of those considerations can be highly contextual – and, at times, difficult to reconcile.
For advertisers and creative agencies, the challenge remains finding that sweet spot between memorable, boundary-pushing creative and compliance with the AANA Code of Ethics.
And for Pizza Hut? Well, whatever your view of the determinations, the campaign certainly got people talking.
Until next month – stay creative, stay compliant, and perhaps don't steal someone's pizza during a medical emergency.
