Toyota is once again in hot water after Ad Standards found a new ad promoting the new-generation HiLux breached the car industry’s advertising code.
In October, an ad for the GR Yaris was pulled as it depicted the hot hatch driving in a way which would breach laws in Australia’s states and territories, resulting in it being pulled from the air.
The latest instance has centred around a new ad – which was shown on free-to-air and pay-TV in Australia – showing the Toyota HiLux being driven with a dog in its tub, though throughout its journey more dogs whose owners’ utes have broken down jump into the HiLux.
In a case report posted by Ad Standards, the community panel received a complaint about the ad “on the grounds that the ad depicts dangerous and potentially illegal behaviour”, centred around the dogs not being tethered in the back of the ute.
This would not only be a breach of the Australian Association of National Advertisers’ (AANA) code of ethics, but also Section 2c of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) Code.
An Ad Standards community panel found the ad breached Section 2.6 of the AANA Code of Ethics, as the HiLux was not depicted driving in scenarios where dogs are required to be tethered.
“The Panel […] considered that state and territory rules typically require animals to be safely transported,” the report reads.
“The Panel considered that working dogs involved in moving livestock are typically exempt from these rules. However, the Panel considered that the ad does not feature rural or farm settings exclusively, and that the dogs are not shown moving livestock. The Panel considered that this could be interpreted to suggest that such exemptions to the rules do not apply.
“Acknowledging that the main character does not appear to realise that all the neighbourhood dogs are chasing his vehicle and end up jumping on the back, the Panel considered that the ad opens with the man whistling for his dog to jump on the back of a ute, with no indication that the dog was being tethered.
“The Panel considered that the overall impression was that the man was driving to get supplies or conduct some general business, and not that he was herding animals or doing something that would justify an untethered animal.
“A minority of the Panel considered that reasonable adults would realise that transporting untethered animals is unsafe, and would not do so simply because the man in this ad was doing so. However, the majority felt that the behaviour shown, even if lighthearted and possibly exaggerated, was contrary to community expectations on safety.”
In addition to this, it was also found to have breached Section 2c of the FCAI Code, which states “advertisers should ensure that advertisements for motor vehicles do not portray any of the following.
“Driving practices or other actions which would, if they were to take place on a road or road-related area, breach any Commonwealth law or the law of any State or Territory in the relevant jurisdiction in which the advertisement is published or broadcast directly dealing with road safety or traffic regulation.”
In its assessment, the panel wrote: “The Panel acknowledged that the ad concluded with a scene that was clearly fanciful, and that it was impossible to stack dogs in a giant ball as shown in the ad.
“However, the Panel considered that all the scenes prior to this showed dogs jumping onto a moving vehicle or chasing it down the road to ultimately jump onto the vehicle. The Panel considered that these scenes were not presented as fantastical or unrealistic.
“The Panel also considered that the impression created in the ad was that the animals are not safely tethered, which appears to be contrary to state and territory rules pertaining to the transport of animals.”
As a result of the breaches, Toyota said it would modify the advertisement. Torquecafe has contacted the carmaker to find out if the current ad is still in circulation, and how it’ll be modified.
While Toyota did get pulled up for breaching two codes, a third code in the complaint – claiming it portrayed violence – was dismissed.
Discussion about this post