A recent decision by the Advertising Standards Authority has highlighted the need for advertisers to be cautious when interpreting historical accounts.
A complaint was recently upheld against DB Breweries Limited in respect of its television, cinema and online advertisements for the DB Export Beer campaign ‘How to lose an election’. The campaign involved a series of advertisements which told the story of DB Export founder Morton Coutts and how he created an export quality beer when taxes on imported beer where increased due to Finance Minister Arnold Nordmeyer’s 1958 Black Budget. The particulars of the story and creation of DB Export were extensively researched by both the advertising company and DB Breweries, and was intended to convey Morton Coutts’ personal and subjective motivations for creating DB Export. However, it was considered that the advertisements misrepresented historical facts due to the degree of hyperbole and exaggeration used in combination with how the advertisements were executed.
The Code of Ethics requires that no advertisement be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer. The newspaper advertisement made a number of references to how “no ordinary bloke” could now afford to drink imported beer and Morton Coutts' mission “to dodge Nordmeyer’s tax by brewing the world’s best beer, right here.” The Complainant submitted that this was misleading due to the implication that imported beer was the preferred beverage even though the amount of imported beer at the time was miniscule and working men did not drink imported beer either in pubs or at home. However, the Board recognised that advertisers were allowed a certain amount of ‘creative licence’ when portraying historical events and that the amount of exaggeration used meant that consumers would likely interpret the advertisement as coming from the perspective of the Brewery rather than a text book account of history.
On the other hand, the television and cinema advertisements took a documentary type approach telling the story through use of black and white film and accompanying authoritative narrative. However, it was the imagery used to depict the account which perhaps crossed the line. Actual footage of angry demonstrations drawn from a different historical event was used to convey the working men rioting over a jug of beer even though no such riots, or any sort of demonstration arose from the 1958 Budget.
The Board considered that the overall impression from the advertisements was that DB Export beer was designed and created as a response to the public feeling following the 1958 Budget and went on to become one of the true success stories of New Zealand’s brewing history. However, the Board drew a distinction between the mediums used to convey this message. Print advertisements were considered to be more colloquial and conversational and allowed the reader time to digest the story told, whereas the television medium only allowed a limited time for the viewer to digest the advertisement. This meant that the television, cinema or online viewers were likely to consider the advertisement to be a credible and realistic depiction of history and not from the perspective of the Brewery.
Furthermore, the Complainant Jim Anderton MP considered the whole advertising campaign to be a timely warning from DB Breweries about the political consequences for interfering with access to alcohol at a time when the law Commission are looking at reforming liquor legislation.
Nevertheless, the decision shows how an advertiser's creative licence will generally be constrained by the Advertising Codes of Ethics. Even where advertisements “play up” moments in history, this should always be conveyed in a way that suggests it is the advertiser's perspective rather than an accurate historical account.