The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has found that an advertisement by Pineapple Insurance contravened the Code of Advertising Practice by promoting discrimination through negative stereotypes.
The advert appeared on Facebook in Zulu: “Ukushayela unganawo umshwalense kufana nokuthi ‘dumelang’ kumshayeli we tekisi” (“Driving without car insurance is like saying ‘dumelang’ to a taxi driver.” Here, “dumelang” is a common Sotho greeting, contrasting with typical Zulu greetings such as “sawubona”.
The complaint, lodged by a consumer, accused the advert of harbouring “tribalistic stereotypes” and “undertones like the one that assumes that all taxi drivers are Zulus, and they hate Sotho-speaking people”.
The complainant viewed the analogy as reinforcing harmful ethnic divisions, suggesting intolerance or hostility from Zulu taxi drivers towards Sotho speakers.
In its defence, Pineapple argued the advert was part of a broader campaign designed to be “inclusive of all South African groups by including references to everyone’s culture in everyone’s languages in a manner that is relatable”.
The company described the ad as a “light-hearted analogy from everyday South African life”, intended to illustrate the “incongruous, awkward, or simply out of the norm” situation of using a Sotho greeting with a Zulu-speaking taxi driver.
It said Zulu is the widest-used language in South Africa, making it statistically likely that most taxi drivers, particularly in Gauteng, are Zulu-speaking. Thus, greeting them in another language could lead to an “awkward interaction”.
The insurer contended that although the advert generalises, it does not offend or discriminate, and the complainant failed to specify who was offended or how.
The overall goal, according to Pineapple, was to highlight the importance of car insurance through humour that resonates with diverse audiences.
Advert ‘crossed the line’
The ARB’s Directorate evaluated the advert against Clause 3.4 of Section II of the Code, which states: “No advertisements may contain content of any description that is discriminatory, unless, in the opinion of the ARB, such discrimination is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.”
Discrimination is defined as “advertising that directly or indirectly imposes burdens, obligations or disadvantages on, or withholds benefits, opportunities or advantages from a particular person or group on the grounds of race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth; or any other analogous ground” and includes “advertising where a person or group is negatively stereotyped or portrayed in a manner that exploits or demeans, or restricts and entrenches their role in society”.
Acknowledging that humour often relies on stereotypes – either reinforcing recognisable behaviours or subverting them – the Directorate noted South Africans frequently use humour to navigate cultural differences, which can foster positive phenomena when successful.
However, it was challenging to draw the line between light-hearted jokes and discrimination. In this instance, the advert crossed that line by relying on a “negative stereotype” of Zulu taxi drivers.
The Directorate rejected Pineapple’s characterisation of the analogy as merely “awkward”, stating: “Driving without insurance is not ‘awkward’. It is risky and comes with a great deal of financial and personal risk. The communication of the advertisement is that speaking Sotho to a taxi driver is risky, rather than awkward. The advertisement is implying that Zulu taxi drivers are angry and dangerous and are going to respond negatively. Indeed, it is only this interpretation that makes the comparison to driving without insurance make sense.”
Furthermore, the ruling addressed societal realities: “It is an unfortunate reality that many South Africans do have negative stereotypes about taxi drivers, and that some of those stereotypes are tribalistic in nature. While for some people, this advertisement may seem amusing in that it touches on a truth about language choices in taxis, the ultimate reality is that negative stereotypes about Zulu taxi drivers are unintentionally entrenched by advertising like this.”
The Directorate concluded that the advert discriminates on grounds of ethnic or social origin, culture, and language by “characterising Zulu taxi drivers as dangerous or violent”, in contravention of Clause 3.4.
Although the complaint also referenced Clause 1 of Section II on offensive advertising, the decision focused primarily on discrimination, finding no need to rule separately on offensiveness.
The Directorate instructed Pineapple to withdraw the advert.
