Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Adult permission must be obtained before children commit to buying complex or costly products (Rule 5.2.4). Marcoms must not exploit children’s susceptibility to charitable appeals (Rule 5.3.2) or try to sell directly to children by appealing to emotions such as pity or self-confidence (Rule 15.16.1). Marketers must not urge children to buy or persuade others to buy and must avoid high-pressure and hard-sell techniques (Rule 15.16.2). Products and prices must not be presented in a way that suggests children or their families can easily afford them (Rule 15.16.3).
Neither CAP nor the ASA has a definitive rule on what a child could afford but marketers might want to use the Halifax Children’s Pocket Money Surveys as a general guide. The 2008 survey showed the average pocket money in 2008 was £6.13 a week for 8 to 15-year-olds with children aged 8 -11 receiving an average of £4.34 (average pocket money for 8 to 15-year-olds was £8.20 in 2006). For children aged 14 to 16, marketers might factor in odd-job earnings when calculating what the children could reasonably afford.
In 2004, the ASA received a complaint about a £5 instant-win promotion in cereal packets. The complainant believed that £5 cash was not a suitable prize in a product targeted mainly at children. The promoter argued that the cash was low in value and less than the average amount of weekly pocket money received by children. The ASA concluded that £5 was not an unsuitable instant win (Kellogg Company of GB Ltd, 27 October 2004).
In a more recent adjudication, the ASA concluded that an ad for downloadable mobile phone games was misleading because the total cost of downloading the games was not clear. The ad stated “standard operator text charges apply” but did not inform readers that, to download the games, more charges would apply (Walt Disney Company Ltd t/a Disney Mobile, 10 October 2007). The ASA concluded that the ads should have either included the full cost of downloading the games or explained that the cost referred to in the ad was the cost of merely obtaining information. It also concluded that the advertiser should have urged children to get adult permission.
An understanding of the logic of that adjudication is especially important if marketers are advertising a subscription service for which the regular costs might not be easily understood by a young audience. Text such as “callers must be 16+” or “get bill payer’s permission” or similar does not absolve marketers of acting responsibly and including clear pricing information when advertising services that are likely to appeal especially to children (Red Circle Technologies t/a TXT UK, 10 November 2004).
Marketers should note the ASA concluded that advertising a financial product via an insert in a young children’s magazine was not irresponsible. Because it was targeted at children aged as young as 5 to 7, the parents, not the children, bought the magazine and for that reason the ASA accepted that an ad for junior bonds was not unsuitable for an insert in the magazine (Family Assurance Friendly Society Group, 27 August 2003).
See other entries on ‘Children’.
Last modified : 01 September 2010