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.
The Code identifies disability as one of the grounds on which special care should be taken to avoid causing offence. Although some people can be uncomfortable with marketers featuring people with disabilities (for fear of exploitation for example), the ASA is likely to reject complaints about ads that portray those with disability in a positive or neutral light.
Humour can often help avoid offence but marketers whose intentions were to portray illness, afflictions or disability in a light-hearted manner have sometimes got it wrong. In 2002, the ASA received complaints about two posters that featured dwarves; one featured three dwarves who were too short to use public urinals and the other showed them unable to go on a fairground ride because they did not meet the height requirement. Although it considered the latter was likely to be seen as humorous, the ASA upheld complaints about the former because it mocked the ability of the dwarves to perform everyday tasks (Gallaher Group plc, 15 May 2002). One marketer, who showed a 4x4 car menacingly approaching two elderly women on a zebra crossing and invited readers to bet on who would reach the other side without being hit by the car, was found to breach the Code. The ASA noted one of the women needed a walking frame to walk and considered that to depict elderly or infirm people as participants in a race to cross the road mocked their mobility and was likely to cause serious or widespread offence (Paddy Power, 6 June 2001).
An insurance ad in Motor Cycle News was headlined "There are none so blind as those who will not e" and showed the head of a man wearing a motor cycle helmet; only the whites of his eyes could be seen and he seemed to have no irises or pupils. The ASA considered that the headline alone was unlikely to offend but, because the ad could be seen as mocking those with impaired vision, concluded that the slogan in conjunction with the photograph was likely to cause serious or widespread offence (Southern Rock Insurance Company Ltd, 16 November 2005).
Readers might not be offended by the words “crazy”, “mad”, “bonkers”, “nuts and the like, (Konica Minolta Photo Imaging (UK) Ltd, 22 February 2006; Knight Frank, 8 December 2004, and Lloyds TSB Group plc, 25 September 2002) but marketers should nevertheless tread carefully. The use of straight jackets has caused offence (Onetoo Ltd, 24 March 2004; Neat Ideas, 21 May 2003; Carlton Cards, 12 June 2002, and 365 Corporation plc, 16 January 2002). Humorous and light-hearted comments about mental illness are likely to be acceptable. In 2004, the ASA received 13 complaints a poster, for a TV drama called “Nip/Tuck”, that claimed “Sometimes a boob job is the best cure for depression …”. The ASA considered that the poster reflected the content of the drama and that most readers would see the ad as an ironic comment on the importance often attached to appearance.
A hard-hitting Disability Rights Commission poster that featured a disabled worker alongside text stating “I’M GOOD FOR NOTHING. Only 17% of people with learning disabilities are in paid work” was judged unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence in the context of a campaign intended to highlight the reality of life for people with disabilities and to challenge misconceptions (Disability Rights Commission, 19 April 2006). Charities and good causes that work with disabilities will no doubt be given greater leeway when using disabled people in their ads.
Last modified : 06 August 2010