Hilary Souter: ASA chief executive looks back at the 2024 ads that sparked controversy

New reports offer a look into the TV ads that struck a nerve in 2024.

The Advertising Standards Authority received hundreds of complaints last year, but only accepted 100 for review.

They include people disgusted about someone picking their nose, and outrage over cars not stopping at a pedestrian crossing.

Chief executive Hilary Souter says they get a raft of complaints for all different reasons.

"What's interesting to us about the people looking at ads is that they often pick up one issue in an ad that's running for, say, 30 seconds - it's a TV thing that pushes their buttons."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, two ads we go. The Advertising Standards Authority
has had a very busy year and people have been
writing for more complaints about advertisements. And you wouldn't believe
some of the things they find offensive. Somewhere upheld, A
lot of silly ones were in there. So let's talk
about the silly ones. Hillary Suiter right now is the
chief executive of the ASA. Hello Hillary, how are you today?

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hi Andrew? I'm well, thank you very good.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Okay, So many ads, twenty five of them. They're in
the Herald. If you really want to know. Somebody's complained
that an ad features nose picking. What's that about?

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Well? I think it's what's interesting to us about people
looking at ads is they often pick up one issue
in an ad that's running for say, thirty seconds. It's
a TVC which pushes their buttons. And in this case,
this particular complainants thought that it was pretty inappropriate, all well,
unnecessary to show nose picking in a TV ad.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
All right, someone was afraid, unhappy about cars failing to
stop for pedestrians. I thought that should I should I
tell the one that really got me? Somebody complained about
the pet Insure ad, which I'm sure we all know
about which is where a kid drops a pet and
the pet breaks its leg and that the medical costs
eight thousand dollars and Dad's not happy about it and

(01:16):
suddenly drew the long bow. That that meant that ad
was advocating that it's okay to abuse animals as long
as you have pet insurance. I mean, hello, Yes.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
We see a range of consumer takeout. So when we're
looking at these complaints, that's the first thing the chair
of the complaints board will think about, is this a
likely consumer takeout or is this perhaps some more extreme view,
And that often plays into whether or not there's a
threshold has been met to be a possible breach of
the code. And so that was that person's interpretation of

(01:47):
the ad. I'm sure there are other people who thought
it was just highlighting a particular service. If you've got pets,
if you want to help reduce the risk of some
you know, having to pay a big bill for an
animal that's it's heard or unwell.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Great, but are they wasting your time?

Speaker 2 (02:03):
Look, we've got an open and transparent process. If anyone
sees an ad they don't like or they have a
problem with, that could be a breach of our codes,
they can complain to us. They have to go through
a series of steps when they do that, so that's
not there's some hurdles, so people have to really want
to do it, and they have to give us their details.
We need their contact information, and for the people who

(02:25):
want to go through that process, we're happy to take
the time to look at their concerns.

Speaker 1 (02:29):
Hillary On behalf of everybody who has common sense. I'm
sorry that your time has been so wasted, but I
thank you for your time today.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
Thanks Andrew.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive.

Speaker 2 (02:40):
Listen live to news talks they'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.