HomeOthersTwix Ad Ban: Dangerous Driving or Overreaction?

Twix Ad Ban: Dangerous Driving or Overreaction?

A Sweet Commercial, A Sour Outcome

A recent advertising campaign for the popular chocolate bar, Twix, has encountered an unexpected roadblock in the United Kingdom.

Its “Two is More Than One” television and video-on-demand advertisement, characterized by a dramatic car chase, was swiftly pulled from the airwaves.

This action by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) followed multiple viewer complaints, igniting a discussion about the boundaries of creativity in marketing and the paramount importance of public safety.

The Narrative That Sparked ControversyTwix Ad Ban: Dangerous Driving or Overreaction?

The commercial presented a dynamic pursuit sequence involving a male driver in a distinctive caramel-hued vehicle. To elude a pursuer, the lead car performed an extreme maneuver, careening off the road and tumbling down a steep incline.

In a truly surreal twist, the vehicle came to rest, inverted, atop an identical car at the hill’s base. Intriguingly, the same individual appeared to be operating both vehicles. A Twix bar then descended through the upper car’s sunroof, landing in the hands of the driver below.

Following this bizarre confluence, the two conjoined vehicles, with both “drivers” manipulating the same gearstick, then proceeded to drive away. The ad culminated with the tagline, “Two Is More Than One Twix.”

Regulatory Intervention: The ASA’s Stance

The ASA received five formal grievances concerning the advert’s content. Complainants contended that the commercial fostered hazardous driving practices and demonstrated a lack of responsibility.

In its subsequent ruling, the ASA maintained that the depicted driving maneuvers, particularly the emphasis on rapid motion and the various evasive actions, would pose a significant danger and be irresponsible if replicated on actual public roads.

Consequently, the regulatory body concluded that the advertisement endorsed unsafe driving behavior, which seemed likely to contravene established Highway Code regulations.

The ban dictates that the advertisement may not be broadcast again in its current form, and Mars Wrigley has been directed to refrain from encouraging or endorsing dangerous driving in future promotional materials.

Brand’s Defense: An Absurd Reality?

Mars Wrigley, the corporate entity behind the Twix brand, presented a robust defense of their creative work. They asserted that the advertisement was conceived with a “cinematic flair” and existed within an “unrealistic, fantastical, and separate realm.”

Furthermore, it was argued that the stunts showcased were physically impossible to replicate in the real world, thereby signaling their fictional nature.

The company also highlighted Twix’s long-standing reputation for eccentric and whimsical humor, which the advert aimed to embody. They stressed that the scenes were never intended to be mimicked and did not endorse any breaches of road safety laws.

Public Discourse: A Question of Overreach?

The ASA’s verdict has, however, generated considerable debate among the public and within media circles. Many critics suggested that the regulatory body had overreacted, pointing to the ad’s inherently humorous and detached-from-reality tone.

Commentators have argued that if fictional car chase sequences in advertisements are to be deemed problematic, then a similar standard should logically be applied to high-octane action films.

Questions have also been raised about the perceived inconsistency in advertising regulation, particularly when contrasted with the comparatively less stringent oversight of political campaign messaging.

This incident, therefore, serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate equilibrium advertisers must achieve between creative expression and their ethical obligations to public safety.

Conclusion

The prohibition of the Twix advertisement underscores the rigorous standards enforced by the UK’s advertising watchdog. While creative freedom is valued, the case reaffirms that promotional content, even when surreal, is expected to align with fundamental safety guidelines and avoid any suggestion of condoning reckless conduct.

READ ALSO: Australia vs South Africa: Cummins’ Historic Fifer

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Exit mobile version