The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) recently made a ruling in favor of Chicken Licken following a complaint about one of their advertisements. The ad in question featured a middle-aged man portrayed by Phila Mazibuko who struggles with indecisiveness in various scenarios, much to the annoyance of those around him. The commercial culminates in a scene at a Chicken Licken outlet where the man is relieved to find out he can have both meal options instead of having to choose.
The complaint against the ad was lodged at the end of November, with the complainant suggesting that the ad made a mockery of individuals with mental health issues, specifically obsessive-compulsive disorder. Titled “Piki Piki Mabelane,” the ad was created by the advertising agency Joe Public, who defended it by stating that it did not impose any burden on those affected by mental health issues and was meant to be humorous and light-hearted.
The ARB considered two clauses in their ruling: Clause 1 of Section II, which pertains to offensive advertising, and Clause 3.4 of Section II, which addresses unacceptable advertising discrimination. The directorate acknowledged that the portrayal of indecisiveness in the ad could potentially be triggering for some individuals with psychological disorders, but they did not find the ad to be discriminatory or likely to cause widespread offense.
Overall, the ARB ruled in favor of Chicken Licken and Joe Public, stating that while the ad may not resonate with everyone, it did not violate any advertising codes. The ruling emphasized the importance of context and humor in advertising and noted that the commercial’s portrayal of indecisiveness was not intended to be harmful or offensive. This decision highlights the subjective nature of advertising interpretation and the balancing act between creativity and sensitivity in marketing campaigns.
