One of the great pastimes for us Australians, a nation of good-humoured larrikins, is complaining. Vociferously and about just about anything, we absolutely love to complain. As a result, it leads to busy and (one suspects) well-paid careers for ombudsmen. It also means that when it comes to public-facing targets of complaints like advertisements, the body responsible for regulating content, Ad Standards, makes public its determinations on complaints. In the spirit of transparency, your correspondent rounded up some of the funny, egregious and occasionally ridiculous complaints from the past year.
There were a number of honourable mentions that didn’t make it into this list, including parents concerned over influencer Abbie Chatfield’s eggplants in an Uber Eats ad, Toyota getting slammed for promoting safe driving, and streaming platform Binge being accused of promoting incest over a billboard for HBO’s House of the Dragon that read: “He’s a 10, but he’s your uncle”.
AHHH! A burger!
WA-based chicken takeaway chain, Chicken Treat (part of the Craveable Brands group, which also owns Red Rooster, Oporto and Chargrill Charlie’s), seemed to be kicking goals over the past couple of years, opening their first stores in NSW in 2023. But for at least one viewer, one of their TV ads was a big miss.
The ad showed a chicken burger having sauce drizzled over it, turning it briefly into a screaming monster that lunges at the viewer momentarily.
“Every time this ad comes on, I have to rush to mute the telly and look away. It’s disturbing that this would be shown to children,” said one scared complainant.
“They’re actively trying to scare people, and the sound is horrible. It shouldn’t be allowed.”
Craveable Brands in its response said the ad “cleverly mirrors the reaction of a customer trying the [new] sauce for the first time”.
Ad Standards found that while it “recognised the potential for momentary fright”, it “found it to be non-threatening”. Probably because it was an anthropomorphic chicken burger.
The complaint was subsequently dismissed.
It’s a parmi! It’s a parma!
Sticking again with accusations of chicken-related violence, an ad for Nova 100 in Melbourne depicted two new hosts, originally from Adelaide, at the pub with their Victorian co-host. In order to correct her colleagues’ blasphemous use of the slang “parmi” instead of the Victorian-specific “parma” to refer to the pub staple, she utilises an electric dog training collar placed around their necks.
One viewer took issue with it, calling it “very disturbing content” that should be sent to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Nova’s response said that the use of a “correctional” shock was “light-hearted, humorous and unrealistic”, noting that in Victoria, the use of authorised dog training collars (on animals) is legal.
However, the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics requires that violence shown in advertising must be justifiable in the context of the product or service, and that “someone receiving a painful electric shock was not justifiable in the promotion of a radio program”.
Ad Standards found the ad breached section 2.3 of the code, which resulted in it being discontinued by Nova.
Did someone say KFC?
While most ad standards complaints are dismissed, this effort from KFC made headlines last year, and not for the reason you’d expect. The original ad, which showed a woman at a house party noticing her phone is flat and unplugging a cord from a powerboard in order to charge it, but in doing so inadvertently turning off the music, caught the ire of one eagle-eyed viewer.
The complainant noticed that the powerboard in the ad was overloaded, with several double adapters and other powerboards daisy chained, citing Fire and Rescue NSW statistics that show more than 350 house fires start from electrical faults every year.
The complaint noted “regrettably, none of [Fire and Rescue’s] recommended practices are depicted or suggested in the KFC advertisement”.
KFC responded to the complaint, claiming it “in no way intended to promote the use of or mislead viewers as to the safety of using overloaded powerboards”, but the Ad Standards Community Panel found that “the advertisement was contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety”, breaching section 2.6 of the AANA’s Code of Ethics.
The ad was subsequently edited to remove the overloaded powerboard.
Okay, boomer
Sticking with the apparent theme of takeaway chicken, one street ad from Nando’s was a little easier to understand in terms of the nature of the complaint. The slogan of the ad read: “Outbid by a boomer? Raise your hand for peri-peri chicken.”
Several complainants, however, skipped past the dire social commentary on the Australian housing market to the reference to boomers.
“The ad is ageist towards older people. It perpetuates discrimination against older people,” one complaint read.
Dr Catherine Barrett, the founder of a non-profit called Celebrating Ageing, told news.com.au last year that she was calling on Nando’s to “do better”.
Nando’s, in response, said the ad was “designed to be a light-hearted way of escaping from the frustrations of home ownership”, noting the proportion of wealth and homeownership enjoyed by baby boomers.
Ad Standards found that while the term “boomer” was “often used in a condescending or derogatory manner, its use [was] not necessarily discriminatory or vilifying”, and dismissed the complaints.
Welcome to Hell, Melbourne
The Diablo video game series has been around longer than your correspondent has been alive, but that hasn’t stopped developers Activision Blizzard from courting controversy with its latest release, 2023’s Diablo IV. A billboard for the video game in Melbourne depicted a horned woman with the words “Welcome to Hell, Melbourne”.
It drew a number of complaints, claiming it was offensive to Christians and Catholics (who famously are the only faiths to have depictions of hell), as well as frightening for young children.
However, the most notable complaint came from one member of the public, who said, “Even as an adult, it brought back memories of the hell of the two years of lockdowns in Melbourne”.
Activision Blizzard in response said the ads “don’t include any references to the Satanic occult”, and that hell refers to “a fictional location that a person will visit as part of the gameplay in their quest to defeat the fictional villain portrayed in the ads”.
Ad Standards found that while “people of the Christian faith, or other faiths, may not like the use of a reference to hell or the devil … the content of the advertisement itself does not humiliate or incite hatred, contempt or ridicule of Christian people (or other faiths)”.
Ad Standards did not remark on what it was like to live in Melbourne during lockdowns, nor its proximity to hell, and dismissed the complaint.
