From the TIMESONLINE website:
Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.
The £6 million campaign, which begins tonight in the prime ITV1 slot during Coronation Street, is a direct response to government research showing that more than half the population think that climate change will have no effect on them.
Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills.
The advertisement attempts to make adults feel guilty about their legacy to their children. It features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of “a very very strange” world with “horrible consequences” for today’s children.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece
You can also watch the advert using the link above to the TIMESONLINE website
Some Harmless Sky readers have made complaints about the advertisement and I have started this thread because there is obviously going to be a lot of discussion about how the regulators react.
Alex Cull’s complaint can be found here
The full text of Robin Guenier’s complaint is here
Robin has also written to his MP, Peter Lilley, who was the only member of the House of Commons to speak out strongly against the Climate Bill.
I have received the following updates form Robin. Things seem to be moving very rapidly.
14/10/2009 16:13
I called Karen Harms [at the ASA] to discuss this. My fear was that, by turning this into a “political” issue the ASA might wash its hands of the affair & simply dump it on Ofcom – who, in turn, would prevaricate as they have with you, even deciding in the end that it isn’t political after all. But her line was busy & I left a voicemail. Then she called me, but I was on another important call &, this time, I missed her. However, she sent me an email with more detail which, to some extent, allays my fears. In my complaint, I cited ASA’s TV Code section 4 (d) [it’s interesting that they’ve already considered my complaint in some depth to get down to this detail!] – Section 4 is about “Political and Controversial Issues” and 4 (d) says that “No advertisement may show partiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy”. That seems to distinguish “current public policy” from “political controversy” and I was concerned with the former not the latter. She now (her latest email) relies on a note to Section 4 that says (para 2) “The term ‘political’ here is used in a wider sense than ‘party political’ – e.g. “campaigning for the purpose of influencing legislation or executive action …” and goes on to say (para 3) “The … investigation of complaints in relation to political advertising … remains a matter for Ofcom.”
She is (per her latest email) relying on that to say the 4 (d) part of my complaint is a matter for Ofcom not the ASA. Essentially that meets my concern – I refer to about 16 other sections of the Code and they stay with the ASA so my “dumping” fear is unfounded. But I’m unsure about 4 (d) anyway – I’m talking about “partiality” re “current public policy” and that, if I read ASA’s Code correctly, is not a “political” matter (see above) – unless they argue that the ad is designed to “influence” “executive action”. Why would the Government wish to influence its own action.
Anyway, I called her to discuss all this. And, once again, had to leave a voicemail – asking her to call me back. I’m waiting.
14/10/2009 16:33
I’ve now spoken to Karen. She was very helpful. She listened to my interpretation of their Section 4 and understood my points, saying she wasn’t herself able to agree or disagree with me although she appreciated my logic on the matter. She said, therefore, that she would contact Ofcom herself and get their view and contact me when she had done this. In the meantime, she confirmed that ASA (i.e. Karen) would be considering my overall complaint with specific reference to my other 16 Section references, noting that this would not preclude her from referring also to other relevant Sections that I might have missed.
I.E. she could hardly have been more helpful.
This seems, so far, to be moving remarkably quickly. I’ll keep you posted.
I am also moving relevant comments to this thread from the New Statesman thread. The problems with references to comment numbers are unavoidable I’m afraid.
UPDATE: It’s proved impossible to move the comments because the vast size of the NS thread makes the software I use fall over. If you want to refer to them you can create links by right-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘link location’ and then pasting in a link in the usual way.
Discussion of the adverts on the NS thead starts here
Updates: 16/10/2009
If, after viewing the advert, you want to complain about it, then you can do so at the Advertising Standards Authority here:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
It was broadcast again on Thursday 16th October 2009 on ITV1 between 8.00 – 8.30 PM.
There is discussion of the government’s reaction to a flood of complaints about the advert at The Guardian website here.
Update 18/10/2009:
Robin has received another response from the ASA. See his comment here.
Update 24/10/2009:
You can sign a petition against the government’s TV climate change adverts on the Downing Street website here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/sign
TonyB, A regular contributor here, has written a paper that adds very interesting context to the governmen’s TV advertising campain. It can be found at Air Vent here:
This has also been picked up by WattsUpWithThat as well.
From the BBC report:
Does anyone know any more about this? Perhaps Robin could ask Emily.
Everyone please read this carefully.
I have moved several comments to the NS thread. This thread is about the government advertising campaign. If you want to discuss Lomborg’s views on climate change in general, rather than what he says about scaring children, this is not the place. Nor is it the place to post interesting snippets from BBC blogs that just happen to have caught your eye.
How often do I have to explain this? It’s not exactly difficult to understand. All you need to do is think before you post.
Moving comments takes time and I don’t have time to waste at the moment. Any more OT comments here are likely to be deleted, which is a whole lot quicker.
From the BBC story:
the watchdog would be investigating whether the claims about climate change could be substantiated
Shouldn’t that sort of thing be cleared with the ASA in advance? I know it isn’t, but you have to wonder at a system where you can say anything you like unless and until someone complains about it!
It was fun to listen to Melvyn Bragg’s programme on R4 this morning, where he was talking to geologists. I’m sure he was trying to steer the conversation away from climate change (which came up several times) but someone managed to say near the end that what they were talking about was natural variation and nothing to do with AGW. I expect the producer is being brought round with smelling salts about now.
It was certainly interesting to learn that the UK had been an equatorial swamp a few aeons ago – it certainly puts the current hysteria into perspective!
Re: Geoff’s #74
I have sent the following message to the Central Office of Information:
The BBC report (buried in its “Politics” section) is interesting and, I suppose, slightly encouraging. But, note, it’s the government, not the ASA, that prevented it from being shown on children’s programmes. So this isn’t an ASA ban. The issue therefore is that, if it’s banned from children’s programmes, surely in logic it should be banned from other programmes that children might be watching? And of course, in today’s world, that means essentially any programme – and certainly any before the 9:00PM watershed.
As for my asking Emily (TonyN), I received a letter (yes, snail mail) yesterday from my first correspondent Karen (dated 16 October i.e. before she went on holiday looking a little odd in the light of her email also dated 16 October (see my post 32)) saying:
So it seems it’s now out of Karen’s and Emily’s hands – as Emily advised me on the 20th: see my post 50. (And how does she know whether or not I’m being patient? Especially as the ad continues to be shown.)
Robin:
I like the sound of ‘An Investigations Executive’. It seems that things are happening and that, eventually, a decision and explanations for that decision will be forthcoming. Don’t be downhearted!
The BBC report says:
“The government has already been prevented from screening the ad during children’s programmes.”
It would be very interesting to know who did the ‘preventing’ and, if it was the ASA were they acting on their own iitiative or as a result of complaints.
Yes, TonyN. You know, I may be missing something important here. If the government has only just decided to say that the ad was not to be shown on children’s programmes (as opposed to ab initio), that’s very significant – it would mean that it has be shaken by the numbers complaining and the ASA involvement and hopes such a move will defuse all that. (Remember also – I complained to DECC (and I expect others did so also) and to my MP is asking a question.) Obviously, the last thing it wants is a public debate about the issues involved. Interesting – and worth following up. If possible.
It sounds like a useful lever. If the ad has been pulled from children’s programmes, the ‘scare tactic’ element must be under fire. The attempt to schedule it then also undermines the notion that it is really aimed at adults.
I seem to have missed something too. According to the Guardian report, Joan Ruddock has said of the advert:
I failed to quote this in my complaint, which is a pity because this provides criteria for the ASA to judge the integrity of the advert without having to form an opinion of their own as to the scientific basis for what the advert says. They need only consider whether it is in line with the IPCC’s AR4, and it clearly is not.
When I hear form them I will add this point to my complaint.
I’ve emailed the ASA’s press office to try and find out more.
Robin (80)
thank you for your patience
I don’t think that means you have been patient – it means that you may have to be, as in ‘thank you for not smoking’… :-(
Not quite (TonyN – 84) – your emphasis ignores “and other international bodies”. Maybe they think (hope) that catch-all phrase provides their refuge.
And anyway, TonyN, the government policy is only “informed by” the IPCC etc. (See my 67.)
Re my post 82, I now see I’m not paying attention. When I read that BBC article again carefully, I see it says
So this was NOT a government initiative and my post 80 is quite wrong. So presumably it must have been the ASA wot did it. If so, when and why not include any programme a child might watch?
Robin:
This is what I’ve asked the ASA:
Unfortunately bloggers do not always receive the same attention from press officers as the ‘Genlemen of the Press’. On the other hand I assume that the ASA would prefer not to be seen as refusing to provide this information.
Prompted by my thoughts at 89, I called my friend Emily at the ASA – very interesting. She told me that the decision to prevent the ad from being screened during children’s programmes was taken by Clearcast – an organisation (see its website) that is “responsible for the pre-transmission examination and clearance of television advertisements”. So there you have it: it was neither the government nor the ASA that took the decision but Clearcast (like ASA, funded by the industry). See, in particular, its “Notes of Guidance” which follows the same numbering scheme as ASA’s.
Here are two of the (three) “intentions behind [Clearcast’s] Code”:
Both seem directly relevant in this case.
Three quick extracts:
5.2.1 there is a requirment to “obtain objective evidence to support all claims“.
6.2.10 “It is not acceptable for advertising to engender feelings of fear or anxiety in viewers without good reason.”
7.2 “During times when younger children are likely to be viewing, care should be taken to avoid transmitting advertisements containing material which might disturb or frighten them, e.g. pictures of monsters …”
Emily also told me that the BBC’s figure of 357 complaints was accurate but that more are still coming in. She agreed that different complaints complained about different aspects of (or attitudes to) the ad but that Investigations Executives did their utmost to deal with complaints individually. In this case, she thought that would be “very challenging”.
TonyN: I think I’ve just answered your questions at 90 (which I’ve only just seen).
Robin #91: Yes entirely, and that’s very interesting.
Robin #92:
From the ClearCast website
It would also be useful to know whether technical consultants were used in this case and if so who they were. FoE? The Royal Society? Jonahtan Porritt? Bob Watson or Myles Allen who both seem to advise Defra? Or in other words, where would you go looking for an independent and objective consultant to advise on this subject?
Thanks Alex #75 for the BBC link.
Congratulations TonyN #79 on the FOI request. They may refuse a blanket demand on grounds of commercial confidentiality, (though there are no market rivals to climate change, as far as I know). If they ask you to be more specific in your request, it would be nice to have the brief given by DECC to the COI and the brief from the COI to BBDO. This would tell us what the government hoped to get out of the campaign. Also, any market research results, since they will certainly have conducted two lots of research, one into attitudes to climate change, and a second bout to test the ad concepts before final production. (The market research will have been conducted by a company independent of the ad agency).
I’ve developed a talent for interpreting the likely market research behind ad campaigns, and I would guess the ad agency were told:
– concentrate on the future, where factually claims are more difficult to challenge
– concentrate on our children, since the future as an abstract concept is not motivating.
– concentrate on Britain, since we’re not interested in extreme climate events in foreign parts.
On the Joan Ruddock quote which you reproduce at #84, I note the careful formulation already remarked by Robin at #87:
“.. informed by … the IPCC, and other international bodies”.
“Informed by”, not “based on”. And among the “other international bodies”, expect quotes from the worthless recent reports from UNEP and the so-called Kofi Annan Report from the Global Humanitarian Forum.
Remember, £6 million is not a lot compared to total government expenditure, but it’s a big hole in the DECC publicity budget, and some people may be quite worried if the money is seen to have been wasted. The civil servants are there to protect their political masters from embarrassment. In my experience, the most frightening phrases to the good folk at COI and DECC will be “Press Enquiries” and “Questions in the House”. Keep up the good work everyone.
Recieved this reply to an email to the ASA I sent on Tuesday:
As it came from their press officer I assume that it’s pretty up-to-date. There may be other complaints that went straight to Ofcom.
Robin (32)
Karen’s letter to you of the 16th said: I am now on annual leave and I will let you know their response on my return to the office on 27 October.
Strangely, I have just had a letter from her, dated the 20th. How’s that for dedication?
I’d have been quite happy with an email, though. Still, she thanks me for my patience…
This is from the Clearcast website. I note that their ‘complaints’ link refers you to the ASA, so perhaps a direct complaint to them (that they are not doing their job properly) might be worthwhile…
Advertising is not all about selling goods and services; it is often about selling a good message.
Much of the advertising seen by Clearcast is public service advertising from Government departments which aims to sell healthy lifestyle, prudent behaviour or safety messages to the public.
Because of the nature of the ads, Clearcast often has long and complicated discussions with agencies over the acceptability of what can be very harrowing images and emotive voiceovers. In considering these issues, Clearcast has to balance the need to communicate important messages to the public with any likely distress and offence that may be caused by some very hard-hitting ads.
Particular care is needed to ensure that children are unlikely to be distressed by ads they are likely to see. To avoid this Clearcast works very closely with advertising agencies, has considerable internal debate and regularly seeks the advice of broadcasters on whether or not they are willing to transmit certain ads. Sometimes more than one version of an ad is made; one that will appear when children might be watching and another, generally with a stronger message and visuals, to appear when ads are likely to be seen by a mainly adult audience. That doesn’t mean that we apply a watershed restriction to ads with stronger messages; there is a whole host of timing restrictions available to Clearcast ranging from no restriction up to allowing an ad to be shown only after 2300. Our job is to judge which is the right restriction for each individual ad.
While we understand the need for public service advertising to communicate important messages to the public, Clearcast has to ensure that that a significant proportion of the audience will not find the messages unpalatable. This can be difficult when ads talk about, and sometimes show, death, road accidents in which people may be badly injured, the effects of smoking, unhealthy eating or irresponsible alcohol consumption.
As well as clearing ads that we think are suitable for the audiences likely to see them, Clearcast also needs to be satisfied that any claims made in public service advertising are true and substantiated.
Government departments, therefore, have to supply the same level of evidence in support of claims as all other advertisers.
Yes, James, I saw that. It must surely have been impossible for Government to supply “objective evidence” (my post 91) showing that the today’s weather in Britain is “very very strange”, that this is “caused by too much CO2”, that “the effects are happening faster than [the scientists] thought”, that CO2 is nasty black stuff and that the consequences of all this include the inundation of British homes. So how did they get round Clearcast’s unambiguous requirement that the claims made “are true and substantiated”?
Just to say I received a letter today from Karen Harms, dated 16th October, with exactly the same wording as the letter Robin received (“We have decided to pass your complaint to our Investigations Department for their consideration”, etc.)
I’m interested by Clearcast’s guidelines: “Sometimes more than one version of an ad is made; one that will appear when children might be watching and another, generally with a stronger message and visuals, to appear when ads are likely to be seen by a mainly adult audience.”
The only time I have seen the Bedtime Stories ad so far on actual television was on Saturday morning, around 9.25, and I didn’t notice anything different about it, so I’m assuming there’s only one version of it. It was on Channel 4, immediately before a programme about Madonna, so maybe not aimed at very small kids, but this is exactly the time on a Saturday morning when small kids are watching the cartoons over on ITV1.
If the government “have to supply the same level of evidence in support of claims as all other advertisers”, perhaps Clearcast could supply a copy. After, they must have it, mustn’t they?