The ad, which ran in the Daily Telegraph, showed three cricket stumps with the TalkSPORT logo on them being knocked over by a cricket ball. The copy read "Splat, Splat, Spliff. West Indies vs England. Live and exclusive radio commentary".
Calum Macaulay, marketing director of TalkSPORT owner The Wireless Group, said: "The ASA must be smoking something to give this complaint any credence whatsoever. We will appeal against this ridiculous decision. It's ludicrous that anyone has objected to the advertisement on the grounds that it's irresponsible because it contains a reference to drug use."
He added: "No one in their right mind could complain about a well-intentioned piece of alliteration. And for the ASA to uphold the complainant on the basis that it could be seen to condone illegal drug taking and that it links cannabis to sport is frankly ridiculous."
The complainant objected that the headline "Splat, Splat, Spliff" was irresponsible because it was a reference to drug use, offensive to West Indians and unsuitable for advertising sport, especially if seen by children.
TalkSPORT said the ad was intended to communicate the sound of the ball hitting the bat as heard in cricket radio commentary. It said that the word "Spliff" had a double meaning, conveying the sound of the cricket ball taking off the bails and a reference to cannabis, highlighting that the test series was to take place in the West Indies.
"This is an irrefutable fact, which is well documented, and is like saying that the Scots like haggis. The fact is they do. This is reflected in a recent article in The Guardian by respected Trinidadian journalist BC Pires. Pires is not condoning smoking spliffs -- merely stating that it is how life is in the West Indies. Just as we have done with our advertisement," Macaulay said.
It said the press ad was legal and targeted adults and denied that it had used or condoned drugs to advertise cricket, but as a reference to the location of the radio commentary where cannabis use was part of the culture of the islands.
The Advertising Standards Authority said it considered that because it could be seen to condone illegal drug taking and linked cannabis with sport, the advertisement was socially irresponsible. The ASA told the advertisers not to repeat the approach and asked them to consult the CAP copy advice team before advertising again.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .
_1.jpg)
.jpg)
