Channel 4 is in trouble with Ofcom. Not for a programme or an advertisement, but the juxtaposition of the two. The broadcasting regulator says the station broke their code on 26th December 2012 when they ran a commercial which gave the impression it was making fun of a strong rape scene featured in the movie 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo', in which the character Lisbeth Salander is violently assaulted.
The problematic spot didn't actually appear in the full break but in Phones 4U's sponsorship spot which shows a woman seemingly having sex and saying to camera "I'm faking it, can I upgrade?"
As I've mentioned before, the number of complaints which trigger investigation and censure from Ofcom or the ASA is always astonishingly low. Even the notorious Jonathan Ross / Russell Brand phone calls only drew a handful following their broadcast. It was only when the daily Mail ran a piece condemning the presenters that hundreds more objections arrived. In this case, the Phones 4U clip brought a mere 17 complaints bemoaning its inappropriateness. Inevitably, Channel 4 has apologised (such contrition is often the result of damage limitation meetings with lawyers, rather than anything more heartfelt, of course).
But apologies aside, what has actually happened here? Nothing intentional, that's for sure. Any suggestion Channel 4 conspired with the phone retailer to run a provocative sponsorship message against a scene of sexual violence, is frankly bunk.
When a series of these mini-ads, or 'break bumpers', is produced - they are rarely scheduled individually, merely rotated to avoid undue repetition (there are 37 versions in the Phones 4U campaign). Occasionally, and this is the case here, some of the clips have an 'adult' theme and these will be booked to run after 9.00pm, but nothing more strategic than that. When the Phones 4U campaign was scheduled, it would have been spread across an enormous volume of programming as the client sponsors all Channel 4's movie output - so the notion one screening was positioned to produce a specific advertising effect is nonsense. The two scenarios may have jarred quite badly and tastelessly but the incident was nothing more than an unfortunate accident.
As required, the 'sex' execution went out after the watershed and, unluckily, appeared at this disturbing moment in the movie. Arguably Channel 4 will need to introduce measures to mitigate against future clashes of content, but for Ofcom to claim they have done anything wrong is stretching things.
In the post-Savile era, the emphasis on 'compliance' has never been greater in the broadcast business. The result is a regulator - and an audience - watching with eagle eyes for any breach of taste and/or codes of practice. The outcome is a situation where 17 complainants (from a viewership of a few million) is sufficient to produce a heap of expensive fuss over nothing more than a blameless blip.
Interestingly, the new ITV situation comedy 'Vicious' included a scripted gag about rape, suggesting the crime only happened to attractive women, in its opening episode. As far as I'm aware, this didn't generate a single complaint, despite the material being intentional and broadcast in the body of a primetime show. So this intensive policing would appear to be inconsistent at the very least.
While this occurrence will undoubtedly pass rapidly from our memories, it does serve to illustrate that we live in an advertising environment where 'offence' can bring hefty censure, even when an ad breaches no regulations. I genuinely hope this atmosphere doesn't compromise creative freedom or persuade clients to be less adventurous, because we should never base policy on the random thoughts of 17 people.
Magnus Shaw is a copywriter, blogger and consultant
