Complaint:
The Toyota Rav 4 television advertisement commenced with a couple waking in the morning and going through their normal rushed routine before leaving for work in the new Rav 4. However, in order to achieve their desire to drive the vehicle, they have each booby trapped the various functions they know their partner will complete prior to departing for the office.
These include the following scenarios:
- a hairdryer is visible as the female partner steps into the bath
- a wooden window frame falls across the man’s neck as he is looking out of the window
- a bowling ball falls from the woman’s wardrobe onto her head as she opens the door
- as the man pulls a light on near his wardrobe, a “blow torch” is activated, setting fire to his hair
- he is then shown tripping over a “trip-wire” and falling down several flights of stairs
- the woman goes inside to find her car key and the viewer sees a red-hot saucepan in the microwave, which ostensibly explodes, blowing up part of the house, and projecting the charred woman partner onto the roof of the RAV 4 which is being driven away by her male partner. On screen appears the tag line:
“THE NEW RAV4. A CAR TO MAKE YOUR OWN”.

Complainant, C. Epps, said:
“I wish to lodge a complaint concerning the Toyota RAV4 advertisement that screened on Monday Feb 27th at approx. 11.30pm and 12.28am Tuesday. This ad portrayed a husband and wife attempting to `humorously’ kill each other so that only one would get the car! …”
Duplicate Complainants (16) shared similar views. They also included the following comments on the behaviour shown in the advertisement:
- it sent an inappropriate message to children about unsafe behavioural practices
- it was disturbing to some children to see a “mother” and “father” trying to hurt each other
- the examples shown would be likely to encourage emulation by some members of society
- it was not socially responsible to show domestic violence as a means to winning use of an inanimate object.

Legal Counsel for the Advertiser and Agency said:
“The complaints
1. We refer to your complaint notification letter of 20 March last and respond to complaints made against the advertisement the subject of this complaint on behalf of Toyota New Zealand Limited (the advertiser) and Saatchi & Saatchi Limited (the advertiser’s agency).

Response timing
2. Your complaint notification letter is dated 20 March 2006 and requires a response within 14 days which expired on 31 March last.
A request was made to the Executive Director of the ASA for further time for the response to be delivered because of the need to assemble focus group research as to the consumer reaction to the advertisement in question. An extension was granted until 7 April with the Complaints Board meeting on 11 April. This submission is consequently a “late paper” which may not give the Complaints Board adequate time to fully assess these submissions and the urgent research commissioned by the advertiser.
The Board will appreciate the importance of proper consideration of these Submissions against the multiple complaints made against the commercial as well as the significant effect that will be occasioned to the advertiser in the event that complaints are upheld against the advertisement.
The Complaints Board is requested to adjourn its determination of this complaint until the next scheduled meeting of the Board to enable Board members to properly consider these submissions and the additional material provided in electronic format to ensure that the advertiser and its agency can be satisfied that a full and proper consideration has been given to this response.

The Codes
3. The Board has suggested the advertisement breaches provisions of the Advertising Codes of Ethics and the Code for Advertising Vehicles.
The provisions of the Codes of Ethics deemed relevant to the complaints can be summarised as follows:
3.1 Social responsibility (Basic Principle 4)
3.2 Offensiveness against generally prevailing community standards (Rule 5)
3.3 Safety (Rule 12).
The provisions of the Code for Advertising Vehicles can be summarised as follows:
3.4 Compliance with the laws of New Zealand (Principle 1)
3.5 Encouragement of unsafe practices (Guideline 2(a))
3.6 The depiction of unsafe practices (Guideline 2(b)).
At the outset and within the context of both Codes under examination the advertiser and its agency seeks from the Board a determination that employs the discretion that the Board possesses to ensure a commonsense outcome is achieved.
The essential elements of each of the Codes identified are addressed as follows:

Social responsibility
4. Excellent advertising demands a consumer response. The advertiser and its agencies in various campaigns for Toyota motor vehicles has produced advertising that has captured the “kiwi” ethos employing humour in everyday New Zealand situations.
The Board will recall the “bugger” campaign for the Hilux motor vehicle and the more recent example for Hilux of the bulls hijacking the farmer’s motor vehicle the subject of complaint determination 05/133 which is annexed as Schedule A. It is within this context that the Rav 4 commercial must be reviewed. The advertiser’s agency developed the commercial from the focus group findings annexed as Schedule B. These findings confirmed that the small SUVs were perceived particularly by men as cars for women. The focus group findings also confirmed consumer demand for smaller more economical but versatile motor vehicles being required by both sexes.
From this starting point the Rav 4 commercial was developed showing the attractiveness and excitement generated between the sexes upon the arrival of the new Rav 4 in the driveway.
The interaction between the sexes is the subject of exaggeration employing humour as the means of exaggeration.
The use of humour in advertising is an accepted device for the promotion of products in the New Zealand environment.
The exaggerated interaction between the participants cannot be seen to offend against Basic Principle 4 of the Advertising Code of Ethics when seen in the context of the product being promoted and the deliberate exaggeration for humourous effect employed to create the viewers’ interest in the commercial under determination.
The advertiser and its agency is aware of 17 complaints (which will be examined later in this submission) against the commercial in question from which this determination has originated. The agency sought consumer reaction by on the street interviews of consumers whose reaction can be found on the video annexed as Schedule C. Whilst this method of gauging consumer reaction cannot be regarded as scientific it provides balance and an alternative view to that proposed by the complainants in this matter.
The evidence provided and a review of decision 05/133 will, it is submitted, provide sufficient background to allow the Board to find that a breach of Basic Principle 4 of the Advertising Code of Ethics has not occurred.

Offensiveness
5. Rule 5 of the Advertising Code of Ethics requires that advertisers should not clearly offend against generally prevailing community standards taking into account the context, medium, audience and product being promoted.
This submission has already noted the limited amount of time to obtain consumer research to enable the impact of the advertisement to be gauged against prevailing community standards. Annexed as Schedule D is a report commissioned by the advertiser with TNS Media who undertake consumer surveys employing the medium of the internet. The advertiser within the time parameters required for this complaint submission was unable to complete a focus group based detailed report.
You will note from this report that 750 people have reacted to the advertisement and that the issue of offensiveness together with the other alleged breaches of the Advertising Codes identified in paragraph 3 of this submission have been directly addressed. On the issue of offensiveness the survey reveals that 85% of respondents disagreed with the question of offence generated from the broadcast of the advertisement.
In addition in an independent survey conducted during March 2006 by TNS Media Limited for Ad Media Magazine 1042 New Zealanders were asked to name the best ad on TV. The Toyota Rav 4 advertisement was ranked as follows:
1 Toyota Rav 4
2 Tip Top Trumpet
3 Telecom animals unq
4 AMP
5 ASB Bank Goldstein
6 Air NZ supporting rugby
7 Telecom T3G
8 Sony
9 TV 1 only one of me promo
10 Vero bull in china shop
This must of course be contrasted against the 17 complaints received against the commercial but provides sufficient evidence to the Board as to the general reaction of consumers to the commercial as broadcast and in particular the lack of offence taken within the requirements of Rule 5 of the Advertising Code of Ethics.
In the light of this evidence it is the submission of the advertiser and its agency that a breach of Rule 5 of the Advertising Code of Ethics has not occurred.

Safety
6. Many of the complaints received relate to the safety of the various predicaments the participants in the commercial find themselves in. The advertiser and its agency again emphasise the use of hyperbole for effect. The Board is well aware of the definition of hyperbole being “deliberate exaggeration used for effect” (the Collins Dictionary, 1987). The Board is again referred to Schedule D and questions 5 and 8 which deal with this specific issue. Each of the circumstances displayed are in the context of the participants’ enthusiasm to be first to the motor vehicle. A `Keystone Cops’ environment is created and it becomes immediately apparent that the circumstances displayed are both farcical and fantastic.
To alleviate the concern of the complainants the advertiser is prepared to review future broadcast of the advertisement against the programmes broadcast and will ensure that the commercial is not broadcast in programmes where unsupervised viewing by children is likely.
It is believed that this review by the advertiser should alleviate many of the complainants’ concerns.
The evidence now available for review is sufficient to enable the Board to find that Rule 12 of the Advertising Code of Ethics has not been breached by this advertisement.

Advertising vehicles
7. Reference has already been made to the introduction to this Code and the discretion that it vests in the Complaints Board to ensure commonsense outcomes and to recognise obvious hyperbole and humour.
Unsafe driving practices
7.1 The only unsafe driving practice displayed is the final scene when the female participant can be found clinging to the roof of the Rav 4. The advertiser advises that this scene was created to clearly display that the female participant had not perished in the exploding house previously displayed.
The fantasy created by the commercial at large is such that the requirements of Principle I of the Code for Advertising Vehicles of compliance with New Zealand laws has little relevance to the complaints under review and the Board in seeking a commonsense outcome should determine that a breach of Principal 1 has not occurred.
7.2 The comments made in the preceding paragraph have equal application to the suggestion that guideline 2(a) of the Code has been breached. The portion of time when the vehicle is displayed on the road against the running time of the commercial is minute. The display of the female participant clinging to the roof of the Rav 4 provides a final example of the predicaments encountered by the participants as they seek first use of the car. A commonsense outcome must lead the Board to find that Guideline 2(a) of the Code is not applicable to this advertisement.

Road practices and safety
8. The same principle the subject of the submissions in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this submission apply to the suggestion that Guideline 2(d) has been breached by the broadcast of the commercial. Hyperbole and humour together with the history of promotion of Toyota motor vehicles in New Zealand coupled with the research to be found in the TNS Media report (Schedule D) would indicate that the Code for Advertising Vehicles has limited application to the complaints brought against the commercial.

Conclusion
9. The complaints brought to the Complaints Board demonstrate a range of concerns including a plea that “humorous killing be avoided” and that the continued broadcast of the commercial was not in the public interest.
The commercial is not about the depiction of violence or the display of dubious or dangerous values. The New Zealand television viewer is sufficiently sophisticated to be able to recognise humour and satirical treatment of everyday situations.
The TNS Media report as annexed is conclusive in its findings that a significant majority of people polled were not offended by the advertisement, identified the purpose of the humour contained in the commercial and did not find the advertisement socially irresponsible.
The advertiser regrets any offence occasioned to the complainants and as noted is prepared to limit broadcast of the commercial to times when there is certainty as to adult audiences and supervision of children viewing television. It is believed that this action demonstrates the social responsibility of the advertiser and its agency and is sufficient to allay many of the concerns of the complainants. The Complaints Board is asked to resolve that the complaints brought against the Toyota Rav 4 advertisement be not upheld.”

Television Commercial Approvals Bureau (TVCAB) said on behalf of the media:
“TVCAB has been asked to respond to this complaint under the :
Code of Ethics
Basic Principle 4 - advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility;
Rule 5 - should not cause serious or widespread offence;
Rule 12 - should not depict unsafe or dangerous practices;
And
Code for Advertising Vehicles
Principle 1 - advertisements should comply with New Zealand laws;
Principle 2 Guideline 2(a) - should not glorify unsafe driving practices;
Principle 2 Guideline 2(d) - should not depict unsafe driving practices which though not breaking the law are desirable from a safety point of view.
Viewers have become familiar over the years with the humorous and hyperbolic themes used by Toyota and this is another of that genre. In the past a number of complaints in terms of driving practices against both the `bugger’ and `sheep shagger’ advertisements for this Company have been found not to have breached the Advertising Codes.
The plot of this Rav 4 `battle of the sexes’ commercial about which complaints have been made is also humorous and hyperbolic, so much so, that it is clearly in the realm of the ridiculous. The story begins with a couple waking in the morning and going through their normal rushed routine before leaving for work in the new Rav 4. However `the gloves are off as, in order to achieve their desire to drive the vehicle, they have each booby trapped the various functions they know their partner will complete prior to departing for the office. After a series of entirely improbable actions the victorious husband drives away in the spacious new Rav4. However, as he adjusts the rear view mirror in time to see the house explode in a huge fireball he is unaware of what the viewer can see - his determined, somewhat charred wife clinging to the roof of the car! On screen appears the tag line:
“THE NEW RAV4. A CAR TO MAKE YOUR OWN”.
The nature of this advertisement is such that viewers will realise that it is a depiction of a ridiculous imaginary scenario and not an advertisement advocating the actions of real life. The over the top nature of this fictitious advertisement means that the viewing public will realise that the whole story was staged under controlled conditions. Given the extensive national screening the receipt of some 8 complaints does not indicate that the offence is widespread.
The entire advertisement should be viewed as light-hearted hyperbole with nothing literal or dangerous to be taken from it. On this basis the TVCAB submits the complaint should not be upheld.”

Deliberation:
The Complaints Board perused all relevant correspondence and viewed the advertisement and the audio visual material supplied by Counsel for the Advertiser.
It noted that a total of 17 complaints had been received which, it said, was indicative of widespread concern about the content of the advertisement.
It took into account the various issues raised in complaint, many of which concerned the safety of the various predicaments the participants in the commercial inflicted on each other in an attempt to gain exclusive access to the car. Another issue in relation to this complaint, was the times when the advertisement had been screened and the requirement for advertisements to be created and managed with a due sense of social responsibility to both consumers and society. It also noted the response from Counsel for the Advertiser indicated that the Advertiser was prepared to review future broadcast of the advertisement against the programmes broadcast and ensure that the commercial was not broadcast in programmes where unsupervised viewing by children is likely.
The Complaints Board noted that the advertisement had received a G classification from the Television Commercial Approvals Bureau which allowed it to be played at any time. To its mind, this was not an appropriate classification and the Complaints Board sought that advertisements which showed an unsafe act or acts, be given a classification restricting them from playing during times at which they can be seen by children.
Addressing the complaints in relation to the Advertising Codes, the Complaints Board made the following observations.
Code for Advertising Vehicles.
The Complaints Board noted the following provisions in the Introduction section.
“The purpose of the Code is to ensure that advertising of vehicles will be conducted in a manner which is socially and environmentally responsible and does not encourage unsafe practices.
… Upon complaint the Advertising Standards Complaints Board is vested with discretion to ensure a commonsense outcome and take into account obvious hyberbole and humour.”
Accordingly the majority, taking a commonsense view, said the Code did not apply as the advertisement was essentially humorous and hyperbolic which saved it from effecting a breach. However, a minority was of the view that the advertisement was in breach of Principle 2, Guideline 2(d) as in its view, the scene showing the charred and bedraggled woman clinging to the top of the moving car amounted to the depiction of an unsafe practice on a public road, which could encourage a disregard for safety.
Turning to the Code of Ethics, members of the Complaints Board made the following comments and observations when taking into account the context, medium, audience and product.
- The Complaints Board noted that the advertisement contained a total of six depictions of unsafe practices, which although intended to be humorous, were able to be emulated by some members of society including children. The two incidents which were of particular concern were showing the hairdryer in association with water, and placing the trip-wire at the top of the stairs.
- The majority said the depictions of “unsafe practices” in the advertisement would be likely to encourage a disregard for safety. This was exacerbated by the number of practices shown and the fact that the situations had an element of “reality” about them, that is, they could be emulated by some members of society. In the majority view, the intended humour did not prevent the advertisement from effecting a breach of Rule 12. Accordingly, the majority ruled that the advertisement was in breach of this rule.
- The majority said the inclusion of elements of domestic violence in an advertisement designed to sell a product did not meet the due sense of social responsibility required by Basic Principle 4. Domestic violence was prevalent in New Zealand society and to show aspects of it, or any violence, in an advertisement was not humorous, particularly at times when it could be viewed by children. For this reason, the majority ruled that the advertisement breached Basic Principle 4.
- The majority said the advertisement contained a level of nastiness and malice which went beyond generally prevailing community standards of what was acceptable behaviour between two human beings. Accordingly, it exceeded the threshold of acceptability in the light of generally prevailing community standards, causing both serious and widespread offence as evident in the content and number of complaints received. As such the majority ruled that the advertisement was also in breach of Rule 5.

Having made the above observations, the Complaints Board ruled to uphold the complaint.

Decision:
Complaint Upheld