Advertising Standards Authority reject Mumsnetters' complaints about Madeleine McCann advertisement

[morningpaper]

The ASA think that the advertisement was suitable for a U audience

I'm annoyed at that; I think it is the wrong decision. I think that the use of pictures and the 'story' that a young child was "snatched" WOULD upset young children.

It's very subjective and I know that the ASA is staffed by lots of trendy Londoners who haven't seen young children for years, but I think that it is the wrong decision. Shame.

Hooray for a common sense decision.

My DD is 3 and she knows about MM and isn't in the least bit distressed or afraid - she's just interested in pictures when she sees them.

Kids at that age don't have the context to make something like that scary. However I have to admit she hasn't been to see Shrek as personally I don't think its suitable at her age - I'd rather her imagination grew via books, conversations and play.

Agree with OP - ASA decision is wrong on many levels.

I am also with the ASA on this one. A balance needed to be struck and the importance of publicising a child's disappearance took precedence over other matters. In the circumstances, I am in agreement.

Agree with Highwwater.

Yeah right, so it was really important to publicise it to CHILDREN was it? Who might not have known about it (mine didn't) and who, in any case, can't help find her. Before a U film? I think not.

tazmosis, i had to have a giggle at your post.
You have told your 3 year old all about the Madeleine case and yet you don't think Shrek is appropriate. It just seems so at odds to me.
Shrek is fantasy(we can tell our children that) , the awful truth about Madeleine is real (i'm assuming you've told you dd that).
(and i'm not being patronisng or taking the piss, we've agreed alot in the past about Madeleine)

I think the ASA have missed the point. How dim are they, to think cinema advertising is about pictures alone, not words?

ASA decision was wrong. but no-one wants to be the one to put their name to a decision like that do they?

"snatched from her bed" well actually we don't actually know that she was snatched from her bed so the term alone is sensationalist.

But they're not going to bring these ads back are they? from what I've read it's a fairly certain belief that Madeleine is dead and died on the night she disappeared so really this campaign has no use now does it?

tazmosis I have also have a 3yo whom I wouldn't have taken to see Shrek. She would have probably been scared (very wimpy about such things) and almost certainly wouldn't have sat through it. However, I also have a 6yo (NB he can also read) whom I might well have taken to see it. Neither of them know about Madeleine McCann.

I can sort of imagine discussing it with my 6yo (but have seen no reason to do so) but cannot imagine it doing anything but terrifying my 3yo.

Its how the news is broken to them in the first case that makes the difference. If they found out from a loving caring parent then it would be put in such a way that they feel safe and secure. But to hear it at the cinema or from another child or simply by overhearing it the information may be misinterpreted or misunderstood.

I told mine way back in May when it was all over the news and papers. It was not possible for me to be able to hide it from them. Im glad i did for several reasons,

1. They are not unduley disturbed by seeing her campaign anywhere else.
2. Ive created an openess, freedom to talk about anything about it (or similar) if they are worried anything.
3. My dd2s school assembly covered the issue, so im glad i got there first.

I dont go on and on about how awful the mmc is and the circumstances of how she was "snatched". I simply made brief reference to it and informed them in a way that let them know they are secure and safe and very much loved.

To be totally honest though, i dont think they are all that interested. They are far more concerned with who can play on pollypocket.com 1st!{hmm]

Angeliz - your post made me smile! DD just knows that Madeleine is lost and her Mummy and Daddy are trying to find her - her picture was all over the news for weeks and she was intrigued because they're about the same age - she initially called her 'the Madeleines' because of all the different photos, but now just notices if there is a poster and asks if she's still lost. Because its so familiar to her, she takes it for granted and it's just a fact so whatever else she hears about the case just goes over her head.

Films/TV - I'm a bit anti for the kids...its not interactive so its hard to influence how they feel about it as they watch it and it tends to be a bit addictive and I'd rather they were doing something else...

I think this decision probably reflects the demographic profile of tossy childless London advertising types

Snatched was the issue - nothing else.

DD doesn't know because she is 4 and I see nothing to gain from telling her. She knows not to speak to strangers etc, a girl her age being taken from her bed will do no benefit to her.

QUOTE: I think this decision probably reflects the demographic profile of tossy childless London advertising types

Does that mean that those of us who are parents who fully agree with the decision are also 'tossy'....?

A balance needed to be struck and the importance of publicising a child's disappearance took precedence over other matters

That is utterly irrelevant. The ASA's job is not to act as a moral compass of what is morally correct. It is to determine whether advertisements adhere to the advertising codes of practice. In this case, is a serious advert shown to a U audience about a young child being "snatched from her bed" likely to cause distress and fear to young children?

If the answer to that is yes, then I don't see how the complaint can not be upheld.

I find it hard to see how they came to their conclusion although I would imagine that most people working at the ASA have not seen young children for many years.

"Code 9.2 Marketers may use an appeal to fear to encourage prudent behaviour or to discourage dangerous or ill-advised actions; the fear likely to be aroused should not be disproportionate to the risk."

I think in this case the fear likely to be aroused (in young children) was disproportionate to the risk (nil).

I think it is also in breach of Code 47.2:

"Marketing communications addressed to, targeted at or featuring children should contain nothing that is likely to result in their physical, mental or moral harm"

"The ASA acknowledged that the idea of a child disappearing was inherently upsetting, but said the film was not sensationalist and did not contain any distressing images. "

Yes, and people whose children were watching the ad thought they were going to a film about a cuddly green ogre, not a news item which was 'inherently upsetting'.

MorningPaper: I think your research is very good, and you are right, the ASA doesn't have the moral authority to make a decision as to whether other small children should be distressed (and they have agreed that it is distressing, 'inherently' distresssing) when they are in no position to contribute to the positive outcome intended by the ad.

I did my university dissertation on the ASA and I also worked there for a few years as an investigator writing recommendations for the council

I find it v. interesting and can bore people about it for hours (as you can see)

was she 'snatched'?

she may have gone willingly 'to find mummy'? who knows?

Did they change the words at some point? Because I saw the ad a few days after the initial furore on MN (and when several cinema chains had already withdrawn it) and it didn't use the phrase "snatched from her bed". I can't remember exactly what the ad did say but I know I was waiting for that phrase and it didn't come.

Don't know about actual wording, it's all turned urban-legend, hasn't it?

Would like to see script.

found it - the ad is here half way down the page

Hmm no words AT ALL on that version although the spokesperson is quoted as saying, "This is very uncomfortable for everyone. The ad is a very simple one. Madeleine was snatched so that is why we used the word."

I also disagree with this:

"They believed younger children, or those with no knowledge of the incident, were likely to have a parent or adult with them in the cinema and that adult would be able to cope sensitively with any questions raised by the child."

How can you answer questions adequately in a noisy cinema enviroment with a movie about to start? We all know the importance of dealing with issues/ concerns as they arise - in this case a parent would have to wait some 1.5 hours until after the film. I know that if my 5 year old was upset about something he would dwell on it for the whole of this time .

In my opinion it's not appropriate to compare the cinema environment with TV at home either. Cinema is much more all-engaging (loud, big, bright in a dark room etc).