BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Nightline, TV3's late evening news on 27 July showed extracts from the Otago v

South Africa rugby game including the presentation of a Springbok head to Otago as

the winners.

GOAL's spokesperson, Mr Turner, complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that

screening the prominent background signs promoting Steinlager beer during the

presentation breached the broadcasting standards relating to the incidental promotion

of liquor. Moreover, as one of the signs carried the word "lager", Mr Turner said that

the broadcast amounted to a liquor advertisement which was not acceptable in such

items.

Explaining that the event was one over which it had no control and that the three

people involved in the ceremony were standing in front of the signs, TV3 said the

signs had not been unduly focussed on and declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied that TV3 did not uphold that aspect of the complaint and ignored the

aspect about the word "lager", Mr Turner referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

The South African rugby team brought to New Zealand the head of a springbok to

donate to the first provincial team which beat them. The Otago rugby team defeated

the South Africans and the ceremony at which the head was exchanged was broadcast

on Nightline.

GOAL's spokesperson, Mr Cliff Turner, complained to TV3 that because signs

promoting Steinlager beer were prominent in the background, the broadcast breached

standards A3.a and A3.c of the Programme Standards for the Promotion of Liquor.

The standards read:

A3 Broadcasters will ensure that the incidental promotion of liquor is

minimised and in particular:

a. Will not be a party to any contract or arrangement where incidental

liquor promotion is a contrived part of the programme

b. ...

c. Will not unduly focus in a live or on-location event on any particular

advertising signage, logo or any other sound or visual effect which

promotes liquor

d. Will not broadcast anything which is a breach of section 1, relating to

incidental promotion and saturation, of the Voluntary Sports Code for

Liquor Advertising and Promotion on Television.

It is recognised that incidental liquor promotion occurs from time to time in

programmes where broadcasters have little or no control over the situation. In

those situations they must minimise the exposure to the best of their ability.

Where broadcasters have control of the situation, they will ensure that the

standards regarding incidental promotion are followed in the spirit as well as the

letter.

Furthermore, as one sign contained the word "lager", Mr Turner argued that the

broadcast became a liquor advertisement rather than a sponsorship advertisement and,

accordingly, breached rule 1.6 of the Voluntary Sports Code which states that

backdrops for tour announcements shall contain no reference to liquor advertisements.

As a breach of the Voluntary Code, he argued that it breached standard A3.d of the

Programme Standards (noted above).

Explaining that its camera operator was admitted to the ceremony only minutes before

the presentation, TV3 pointed out that the broadcast was recorded in a place over

which it had minimal control. Nevertheless, it continued, it had taken care not to focus

on the liquor signage.

When he referred GOAL's complaint to the Authority, Mr Turner pointed out that

TV3 had ignored the standard A3.d aspect of the complaint. In reply, TV3 advised

that it had considered that aspect and had declined to uphold it. It apologised for

omitting to mention it.

A breach of standard A3.a requires that the broadcast complained about contain

contrived incidental liquor promotion and that the broadcaster be a party to that

contrivance. At news conferences where liquor signage is placed on the wall behind

the speakers, the Authority has no hesitation in defining such liquor promotion as

contrived. However, that was not the situation which applied in this instance. The

presentation occurred at the after-game function which TV3 was admitted to shortly

before the ceremony. Accordingly, while the signs might have been placed to attract

the attention of those present, the Authority did not believe that the liquor promotion

had been contrived to ensure that it was covered by the media. Consequently, it

decided that standard A3.a had not been contravened.

Under standard A3.c, the broadcaster must not "unduly focus" on signage which

promotes liquor. Taking into account the point that the presentation ceremony took

place at what was obviously a crowded after-match function and that the broadcaster,

as it explained, had principally focussed on the speakers, the Authority decided that,

on balance, in accordance with the footnote to the standard, incidental liquor

promotion was minimised to the best of the broadcaster's ability.

GOAL also complained that the broadcast of the word "lager" by itself was a

reference to a "liquor advertisement" in contravention of standard 1.6 of the Voluntary

Sports Code. The Authority did not accept GOAL's argument on this point. It

referred to Decision No: 70/92 (dated 8 October 1992) when it ruled that the addition

of the word "beer" to the trade name of a particular liquor product did not thereby in

itself transform the sponsor's name into a sales message.

Pursuant to the reasoning applied in that decision, the Authority decided that the

addition of the word "lager", when Steinlager logos were to be seen in the background,

did not on this occasion turn the broadcast into a sales message. Accordingly, it

concluded, the broadcast had not contravened the aspect of rule 1.6 raised by GOAL.

For the above reasons, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
6 October 1994

Appendix

GOAL's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited - 28 July 1994

The Secretary of the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor (GOAL), Mr Cliff

Turner, complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about an item which appeared on

Nightline on 27 July broadcast between 10.30 - 11.00pm. The item, Mr Turner noted,

had shown the presentation of a trophy to the Otago rugby team following its victory

over the South Africans. "Prominent in the background", Mr Turner continued, were

signs promoting Steinlager beer" which was a breach of standard A3.a and A3.c of the

code dealing with incidental liquor promotion.

In addition, Mr Turner complained, one of the signs carried the word "lager" and the

broadcast thus became a liquor advertisement rather than a sponsorship advertisement.

Consequently, it breached the provision of the Voluntary Sports Code which

prohibits references to liquor advertisements in the backdrop of tour events.

Therefore, Mr Turner concluded, the broadcast became standard A3.d of the code

referred to above.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 17 August 1994

When TV3 advised GOAL of its Complaints Committee's decision, it pointed out

that the presentation ceremony had been organised by the rugby teams and, as the

operator was admitted only minutes before the presentation, it was an event over

which TV3 had no control. The three main people involved in the ceremony had been

standing in front of the signs but, TV3 argued, the shot had not unduly focused on the

logo. It added, "indeed much of the logo was obscured by the officials presenting the

award" and declined to uphold the complaint.

GOAL's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 18 August 1994

Dissatisfied with TV3's reply, Mr Turner on GOAL's behalf referred the complaint

to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Turner disagreed with the broadcaster's decision on the complaint alleging a breach

of standard A3.a and A3.c and said the standard A3.d aspect was ignored.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 25 August 1994

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint.

TV3 limited its comments to the point that it had considered - and declined - the

standard A3.d aspect of the complaint and apologised for omitting to refer to it.

GOAL's Final Response to the Authority - 29 August 1994

Mr Turner declined to comment on TV3's reply to the Authority.