Banned Iceland ad on palm oil sparks debate over politicisation on TV

By Ellie Brown, Second Year, Sociology and Politics

Currently, adverts on television in the UK are banned if they are deemed to be politically motivated. However, with the recent, high profile case of Iceland’s Christmas special, this has been brought into debate.

It all started with a tweet.

Cut to one week later and the post has been shared 92,000 times, while the video has a combined view count of around 30 million. For a banned advert, that’s a lot of publicity. Yet why was Iceland’s Christmas ad banned in the first place?

On the surface, the video isn’t controversial. Most of its 90 second run-time is made up of an adorable orangutan causing havoc in a young girl’s room. The takeaway is heart-warming, with the girl promising to save the orangutan’s habitat from the palm-oil growers destroying it.

Complete with a narration by national treasure Emma Thompson, the advert seems no more manipulative than many other charity appeals. Indeed, Clearcast – the agency who banned the ad – had no problem with its message. Rather, it was the origins of the advert - part of a campaign for environmental group Greenpeace - which affected their decision.

Chris Mundy, Managing Director of Clearcast, explained why on the company’s blog. For the agency, it ‘was a matter of broadcasting law’. As the ad was ‘based on material made by Greenpeace’ it violated rules by being ‘inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature’. It is thus implied that if Greenpeace was able to prove they didn’t match these criteria – as charities such as Friends of the Earth and WWF have done – the Iceland’s advertisement would have been aired. However, why wasn’t Greenpeace able to get the same exemption as these organisations?

This may be due to the nature of Greenpeace. The organisation claims to be about raising awareness, but their campaigns often urge supporters to take direct action. This was the case with the original Greenpeace advert, hardly changed after being adopted by Iceland. Shared more than 200,000 times on social media, and viewed over half a million times on YouTube, the advert was linked to a petition calling for companies to stop using palm oil.

It violated rules by being 'inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature'.

Therefore, unlike a similar advert by the WWF last year, it wasn’t simply for fundraising purposes. On the other hand, Greenpeace is not just a campaigning group, it’s also a charity - The Greenpeace Trust. What’s more, it is an independent organisation that doesn’t accept donations from companies, governments, or political parties and none of its campaigns directly seek to influence politics in the UK. Because of this, there is growing support for the advert to be shown – and for rules to be changed.

Much of the support has come from social media. Comments on these videos express outrage over the ban and have gained tens of thousands of likes, whilst celebrities such as James Corden and Stephen Fry publicly backed the ad on Twitter. A petition for allowing it on TV has now reached almost a million signatures, even though a similar petition was rejected by the House of Commons. Meanwhile, both newspapers and online blogs have featured articles arguing for the advert to be shown.

However, as the government pointed out, showing the advert would breach the 2003 Communications Act. Doing this may set the unhelpful precedent that as long as the public supports a campaign, it should be shown on television, regardless of the laws.

Furthermore, there are arguments for the law to stay as it is. These broadcasting rules were developed in the 1950s to prevent a political party or cause from dominating the airwaves. They ensure democracy is maintained, as without them, the only limit to the reach of a political group or campaign would be its bank balance.

The government is allowed to put out broadcasts - outside election and referendum periods - but they have already been democratically elected, unlike less accountable, non-governmental organisations. Plus, these organisations are able to use other forms of media to gain awareness. In the case of Iceland and Greenpeace, social media has proved an asset. But should social media be regulated in the same way that broadcasting is?

Perhaps not. Unlike television and radio, social media is by its very nature a more democratic platform. While money can be spent on targeting adverts, with ‘sponsored’ content appearing on Facebook and Twitter, the reach of a message is not wholly determined by advertisers. Videos can be commented on and shared by the public, who can debate any controversial adverts.

Iceland’s social media campaign benefited from high-profile celebrities sharing it. While it is unlikely in this case they were ‘bought’, other companies could pay for endorsements in the future. Yet even if regulation of this was desirable, it would be hard to apply to such a global medium. What is clear from the controversy is that - because of social media - being banned from TV actually increased publicity for Iceland, Greenpeace and their important cause.

Featured Image: YouTube / Iceland Foods

Do you agree with the ban of the Iceland advert on TV?

Facebook // Epigram Film & TV // Twitter