The depiction of violence in advertising is a complex area that can be challenging to navigate. With perceptions of violence shaped by individual interpretation and a spectrum of subjectivity, what one person views as a compelling narrative may be seen by another as gratuitous or offensive.
What do the rules say?
Under the Section 2.3 of the AANA Code of Ethics, ‘Advertising shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.’
This means that while a depiction of violence may be relevant to the creative idea, any violence in advertising must be justifiable in the context of the product being advertised, or else it may be at risk of breaching the rules.
For advertisers, the challenge lies in determining what is considered ‘justifiable’ violence. And where the depiction of violence may be ‘justifiable’ it must not be excessive or gratuitous. If the Community Panel find that the level of violence is too high, it may not be considered justifiable even if it is relevant to the product or service.
What does the community say?
Ad Standards recently completed a study on community perceptions of violence in ads, and the findings highlight just how complex this issue is. We found that determining what counts as acceptable violence isn’t straight-forward. Australian audiences don’t judge violence in ads solely based on its literal depiction; they also consider other key factors such as context, messaging, and how the violence is portrayed.
Take road safety ads, for example. These often contain strong depictions of violence, but they’re generally more accepted due to their crucial community safety message. Meanwhile, slapstick or comedic violence is usually seen as harmless – unless it feels gratuitous or purposeless, in which case it attracted more criticism. This indicates that the tone and purpose of an ad play a significant role in shaping its reception. It’s not just about what’s shown, but how and why it’s shown that matters to the community.
However, it’s important to note that there is a decent percentage of people who find any depiction of violence in ads unacceptable and unnecessary. This comes from community concerns about the desensitisation and glorification of violence in media.
Additionally, the study revealed that tolerance for violence in ads varies across demographics. Men and people under 35 tend to be generally more accepting of violence in ads, while women, and people aged over 50 were less likely to find violence acceptable.
Finding the balance
The answer lies in balancing creative vision with a clear understanding of community standards. While using violence can certainly grab attention, advertisers must ensure that the use of violence feels justified and purposeful for a successful campaign.
To find out more about current community perceptions of violence in advertising, take a look at our full research report.
If you’d like some advice about whether the use of violence in your ad would be considered acceptable and would comply with the advertising rules, we offer an advice service that provides expert guidance to help make sure your ad stays on the right track.
Some recent cases…
- A Disney+ ad featuring a selection of scenes from horror films
- A heavy metal band’s ad that shows a man biting a woman
- A Budget Direct ad where a pool cleaner “comes to life”