Pineapple advert in poor taste but not in breach of the Code

Posted on 1 Comment

A Pineapple advertisement, despite being in poor taste, did not violate the Code of Advertising Practice by being offensive or discriminatory, the Advertising Appeal Committee (AAC) of the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has found.

The case originated from a consumer complaint about a Pineapple billboard on Republic Road, Johannesburg. The consumer interpreted the advert as a play on words resembling the signs held by individuals at road intersections, arguing it was offensive, insensitive, and trivialised poverty for commercial gain.

The ARB’s Directorate ruled that the advert contravened clauses 3.4 and 1.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice. Clause 3.4 prohibits discriminatory content unless justifiable in a democratic society, while Clause 1.1 prohibits advertising that offends good taste, decency, or public values.

The Directorate found the advertisement discriminatory for demeaning and stereotyping beggars by undermining their intelligence and linguistic capabilities, and offensive for trivialising their language and situation.

Pineapple appealed the Directorate’s ruling, arguing the complaint stemmed from the consumer’s subjective interpretation rather than the advert’s intent or content. The insurer asserted that the advert lacked explicit references to beggars or poverty-related imagery, describing the consumer’s interpretation as “farfetched”.

The company explained that the billboard’s “blackboard-with-chalk” aesthetic and simplistic tone were intended to evoke a “caveman” theme, not to stereotype any group.

Pineapple also raised concerns about freedom of expression, warning the ruling could have a “chilling effect on creative and commercial communication”.

Although the campaign had been replaced and the advert “missed the mark” based on sales results, Pineapple pursued the appeal to “clear its name and maintain its reputation with the ARB”.

Confusion over the advert’s meaning

The AAC found the advert’s meaning unclear, noting that “members of the Appeal Committee made it clear that they were all confused by the advertisement”.

During the hearing, the committee repeatedly asked Pineapple to explain the billboard’s intent. The insurer clarified it was a play on words, conveying that if a customer’s car battery failed, Pineapple, not a “tsotsi”, would assist with jump-starting the vehicle.

When questioned about the term “tsotsi”, Pineapple stated it aimed to use vernacular language to resonate with South Africans, citing positive staff feedback from past campaigns. However, the insurer could not provide examples of other inclusive language use, leading the AAC to find the inclusivity argument “somewhat offensive” and unconvincing, noting that using multiple South African languages would have better supported inclusivity.

‘Caveman theme’ didn’t work

Pineapple’s claim that the advert reflected a “caveman” concept was dismissed by the AAC as lacking merit.

The committee observed that the advert “depicted a chalkboard, suggesting a school environment rather than a caveman”. The ordinary font and simplistic language did not clearly indicate a caveman theme, and there was no indication of the link between a caveman theme and the use of the word “tsotsi”.

The AAC concluded that the “caveman theme” argument failed to align with the advert’s visual and textual elements, undermining Pineapple’s defence that the billboard’s intent was unrelated to poverty or beggars.

Freedom of expression is qualified

Pineapple invoked the constitutional right to freedom of expression to defend its unconventional marketing strategies.

The AAC acknowledged that “safeguarding the right to freedom of expression is necessary to foster a creative, unique, and vibrant advertising space”. However, the Committee noted that this right is qualified by constitutional limitations and must be balanced against other rights, such as human dignity and equality, per Clause 3.10 of Section I of the Code.

The judgment clarified that ARB members voluntarily adhere to the Code, which is binding unless challenged in court.

The Code aligns with the Constitution while imposing “reasonable and justifiable limitations” on expression, reflecting the ARB’s rights to freedom of association and expression.

Reasoning on offensiveness

While acknowledging that the advert was made in poor taste, the committee emphasised that “an advertisement made in poor taste does not necessarily offend good taste”.

Clause 1.2 requires that offence be widespread or sectoral, not merely individual, and considers factors such as context, medium, audience, product nature, prevailing standards, social concern, and public interest. Even if offensive, the advert must be assessed for justifiability in a democratic society.

The billboard was part of a campaign using simple language to promote easy insurance solutions, but the AAC focused solely on the complained-about billboard, because “the consumer does not necessarily see more than one of the advertisements in the campaign”.

The consumer argued that the term “tsotsi” referred to beggars, making the advert offensive and discriminatory. Pineapple defined “tsotsi” as a “law-breaker,” but the AAC preferred “criminal”, “thug”, or “gangster”.

The committee’s task was to determine whether “tsotsi” could reasonably be interpreted as referring to beggars. It found that “such a connection has not been convincingly established, either explicitly or implicitly within the advertisement itself”, and “tsotsi”, as commonly understood, does not specifically denote beggars or economically disadvantaged persons.

The Directorate’s acceptance of this link, based on anecdotal experiences, was deemed unconvincing, because it required “too many assumptions, some of which are in and of themselves problematic”.

The AAC also rejected the Directorate’s inference that the advert’s simple language mimicked signs held by beggars, stating that the Directorate misdirected itself in drawing that inference.

Under Clause 3.4, the AAC found that “the use of the term ‘tsotsi’ does not negatively stereotype, demean, exploit or entrench societal roles of any specific group of people”.

The term did not unjustly portray any community in a discriminatory manner. Despite the advert’s confusing nature and failure to achieve its intended effect, the AAC concluded it did not violate the Code.

1 thought on “Pineapple advert in poor taste but not in breach of the Code

  1. Please insert this under In Lighter Wyn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *