Lotto, SmileCity ad complaints upheld

The Advertising Standards Authority’s Complaints Board has upheld complaints being made against advertisements from the New Zealand Lotteries Commission and Permission Corp and online shopping site SmileCity.

Lotto
Advertisements by NZ Lotto referencing legal tender as being a preferred alternative to fake ‘Monopoly money’ have been scrutinised, with Complainants claiming that the comparison would appeal to the younger generation to those who are within legal age to purchase the Monopoly themed Instant Kiwi tickets.

The Monopoly themed bus shelter advertisements varied in statements, including “What You Win Isn’t Just A Load Of Monopoly Money” and, “Remember All Those Times You Wished The Money Was Real? Yeah, So Do We.”

After a decision by the Complaints Board not to uphold the complaint on 8 November last year, the Complainant appealed the decision resulting in the claim being reheard by the Board.

After consideration of the new evidence provided by the Complainant, complaints made against the latter advertisement statement were not upheld, but the same could not be said for the first, which had the application to appeal the complaint upheld by the Complaints Board regarding its relation to the youth oriented board game, breaching Principle 2 and Guideline 2(a) of the Code for Gaming and Gambling.

Smile City
SmileCity has also been hit with a series of complaints in regards to its misleading TV advertisement showing two vehicles displaying the words “amazing bargains” in relation to the website’s ‘cashless auctions’.

The complaint itself states that the presence of the two vehicles alongside various other prizes including iPods and perfumes in the TV advertisement implies that they are prize options included in the site’s cashless auctions, even though vehicle prizes have never been an option in the past for the online survey/auction site.

In response to the complaint, the majority of the Complaints Board said the general expectation given by the TV ad was that the vehicles would be regularly available for auction and as a result, led the Board to uphold the complaint as it breached Basic Principle 4 and Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.

Samsung
A settlement was made in the case against Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd in which a TV advertisement for the Galaxy SII smart-phone claimed to be as slim as 8.49mm when this measurement only really applies to the thinnest part of the phone.

The advertiser responded to the Complaints Board noting that the scheduled airing of the ad has come to an end and will not air in New Zealand again in its current form, resulting in the settlement of the complaint by the Complaints Board.

The reformulated claim will include a statement that Samsung Galaxy Sll is "8.49mm (at its thinnest point) and 9.9mm (at its thickest point)".