In a recent appeal case Mervyn King clarified the single complaint issue as follows:
"Issues before the ASA cannot be decided on the basis of the number of persons who have complained, as matters cannot be decided by an opinion poll. An advertisement should be considered objectively from the viewpoint of the hypothetical viewer or listener. This fictional, reasonable person is the normal balanced right-thinking and reasonable person who is neither hypercritical nor over sensitive."
In the new South Africa, everyone has the right to be heard and the ASA has the task of deciding whether an individual's basic rights have been infringed.
A single, reasonable complaint might cause the withdrawl of an advertisement when:
On the issue of offensive advertising, the Code states that "the fact that a particular product, service or advertisement may be offensive to some is not in itself sufficient grounds for upholding an objection to an advertisement for that product or service".
It is therefore highly unlikely that a single complaint based on the offensive advertising clause alone would lead to the withdrawal of an advertisement, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
In a case where consumer sensitivities are involved, the number of complaints is likely to play a significant role. In contrast, the ridicule or commercial exploitation of a figure of religious worship (e.g. Buddha or Christ) might conceivably lead to the withdrawal of an advertisement based on one complaint only. Such a decision would have to be made by the Advertising Standards Committee after having heard argument from the complainant and advertiser.
On the other hand, a substantial number of complaints alleging that an advertisement is offensive may not necessarily lead to the withdrawal of an advertisement. The recent Pfizer and Cash Crusaders cases are excellent examples.
The latest rulings can be accessed on the ASA's website www.asasa.org.za free of charge.
