The following selection of complaints received by the Advertising Standards Agency demonstrate to me that some people should stop whining and find something more useful to do with their sad little lives :

Ad

A poster for Coco Pops featured a picture of the cartoon character Coco the monkey dressed in school uniform. The ad stated “Ever thought of Coco Pops after school?”

Issue

1. Twenty-six complainants, including Sustain: The Alliance for Better Food & Farming, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because they believed it directly targeted school children and encouraged them to eat a snack that was high in sugar,

2. Some complainants, including Sustain,challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because they believed it encouraged children to eat two bowls of breakfast cereal a day.

26 complaints – Rejected – Yay!

….

Ad

A radio ad promoting different methods of contraception, featured two separate conversations. The first conversation involved two women talking about the Pill and an IUS, and the second conversation featured a young couple talking about an implant. A voiceover at the end of the ad stated “Talk to a doctor or nurse to find the contraception that’s right for you. Search online for worthtalkingabout. Contraception”.

The ad was cleared by the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) with the advice that it should be scheduled away from times when children under 16 years of age were likely to be listening, for example breakfast and drivetime.

Issue

A listener, who had heard the ad during the school run, challenged whether the ad was suitable to be broadcast at times when children were likely to be listening.

One complaint – Upheld – Boo!

…

Ad

A commercial e-mail, for the Retell call management system, included a large photograph of a naked woman with her back to the camera. Chains were wrapped around her and a sign which stated “ACCESS DENIED” was placed across her bottom.

Issue

One complainant objected that the sexual implications of an image of a naked woman in chains with an “ACCESS DENIED” notice across her bottom, and the dated and sexist view of women it projected, were offensive.

One complaint – Upheld – Boo!

This line from the judgment being somewhat amusing – The ASA considered that, although the ad’s image was not explicit, the “ACCESS DENIED” sign across the naked woman’s bottom implied anal sex.

Has someone at the ASA been watching one too many adult films I wonder?

On and on they go – pages of complaints made by usually single individuals which are then scrutinised at great length (and even greater cost no doubt) often over rather trivial points.