Complaint dismissed

Oh well chalk one up for the forces of darkness...

Advertising Standards Bureau
Level 2, 97 Northbourne Ave
Turner ACT 2612

CASE REPORT
1. Complaint reference number 80/08
2. Advertiser Castrol Lubricants (Magnatec)
3. Product Housegoods/services
4. Type of advertisement TV
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Gender - section 2.1
6. Date of determination Wednesday, 12 March 2008
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:
With respect to the complaint received we do not believe it to be substantiated when viewed in the context of the entire advertisement, for the reasons listed below:
Contravention of the Commonwealth Sexual Discrimination Act 1984: The entire commercial isgood-natured humour and is intended to be a fast paced, almost mini-movie that engages the audience immediately. Castrol Magnatec's new proposition is around "intelligent molecules" andwe needed a storyline that demonstrated this "intelligence" in a humorous and non-offensive, yet memorable way ... the pack was almost adopting "super-hero" behaviours - suave, intelligent and gentlemanly, in an old fashioned way. When the pack sees the women, the intention is for it to return and acknowledge interrupting them rather than purposefully leering at them. Their puzzled expressions are due to the fact that a pack of oil has "zoomed" through their backyard, something that you would never see. Their reactions are intended to be similar to the boys in the wading pool ... a "what is this?" expression rather than an annoyed expression.

As BP is a global organisation, prior to making this advertisement, we gained approval from our global Head Office in England. BP plc has a stringent Diversity & Inclusion policy and does notcondone behaviour that is anyway prejudicial, harassing or discriminatory. This includes portraying any such behaviour in its promotional materials.

Adam Gilchrist is the brand ambassador for Castrol - a partnership now into its fifth year. AdamGilchrist is renowned for his personal integrity as well as his respect for others. He would not support associations or participate in advertising that is discriminating in any way. Thisadvertisement was approved by not only Adam Gilchrist and his manager, Stephen Atkinson, but was also viewed and approved by Cricket Australia; the body responsible for ensuring theirathletes do not appear in advertisements that do not meet the cricketing code of conduct and that have the potential of bringing the game of cricket into disrepute.

On behalf of BP Australia Pty Limited, we trust that we have provided sufficient information toalleviate any concerns held by the ASB and hope that the ASB will view this advertisement in the humorous, non-discriminatory manner in which it was intended.

THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).

The Board noted the complaints' concerns that the advertisement depicted images that were
discriminatory to women and reviewed the advertisement under Section 2.1 0f the Code. The Board viewed the advertisement and noted that it was based on a classic Hollywood chase scene.The animated oil can clearly demonstrated that the scene was a fantasy situation and did not reflect real life events. The Board further noted that the oil can had no eyes and was therefore incapable of leering at the women. The Board considered that the advertisement did not portray a scene which discriminated against women and found the advertisement did not breach Section 2.1 of the Code.

Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

(no bloody name or signature)

Response - Victorian Taxi

A response from the taxi overseers in Vic-bloody-toria. Score '1' for the forces of niceness [fist-pump]!

This was one of the first positive responses to a letter of complaint I have received. It spurred me on to complain some more...

Department of Infrastructure
Vic-bloody-torian Taxi Directorate
Level 6
14-20 Blackwood Street
P.O. Box 666
North Melbourne Vic-bloody-toria 3051
Telephone: (03) 9320 4300
Facsimile: (03) 9320 4339
www.taxi.vic.gov.au

Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Dear (v_quixotic),

Further to your correspondence with the Victorian Taxi Directorate (VTD), I have investigated concerns relating to an alleged over charge on the 30th August 2007.

The VTD has interviewed the taxi driver identified from your complaint. The driver stated he was new to driving Maxi Taxis and his knowledge in high occupancy tariff charges was unclear.
The driver in this circumstance has been re educated in tariff charging and has satisfied the Directorate of being confident in setting correct tariffs.

The driver has requested his apology be passed onto yourself and [your partner].

The driver has refunded an amount of $20.00, which will be sent via a cheque to you within the next 4 weeks. The complaints handling procedures should enable the matters you have raised to be satisfactorily resolved.

If you would like to discuss the issues further, please contact me on (03) 9320 4311. However, if you feel dissatisfied with the results after all opportunity for direct resolution has been exhausted, you may wish to contact the State Ombudsman on telephone (03) 9613 6222, Fax (03) 9614 0246, by post at 3rd Floor, 459 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000. Or at ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au.

John Mutton
Complaints Investigation Officer.
Vic-bloody-torian Taxi Directorate

Virgin Flair

Virgin Blue like to portray themselves as hip and with-it, their staff are brash and flippant, and they've been found to have engaged in discriminatory hiring practices at the Queens-bloody-land Anti Discrimination Tribunal. We should've know better...

Sunday 2nd September, 2007

Manager, Customer Relations
VIRGIN BLUE
PO Box 1034
Spring Hill QLD 4004
Australia

RE: ‘GUEST’ (sic) RELATIONS & ‘BAGGAGE BLUES’ (sic)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to complain about the thoroughly miserable experience my partner Francis and I endured flying Virgin Blue to Melbourne on Sunday 26th August and returning to Brisbane on Thursday 30th August.

The misery began some weeks before the flight when my partner, who has cerebral palsy, had to endure again a protracted interrogation from the staff at the ‘Guest Contact Centre’ when she made a reservation to accompany me to Melbourne. The asked her again a broad range of probing questions on the nature of her disability and the assistance she may require getting to and from her seat. This flippant, cocky man smugly asked for several assurances that she isn't travelling alone as “Virgin Blue require you to travel with a carer”. There was also again a lengthy discussion on the technical details of her power wheelchair – what type of battery it has, how heavy it is, its height, length and width, etc. These are questions asked by your competitor Qantas once. They then enter these details on their computers and all staff are then automatically aware of her requirements. They provide a commissionaire (or even two) to assist her getting into and out of her seat, allow her to travel alone, and do not need to repeatedly ask if she can walk.

Your reservation staff have been given the details they ask several times. This information should be recorded in your computer and pop-up each time she makes a booking or arrives at a departure gate. It is a tiresome chore to have to tell all the arrogant, conceited Virgin Blue staff that, “No my partner can't walk...” and “Yes, I will assist her into her seat...”

We certainly didn't feel like guests!

And then, Virgin Blue staff left her wheelchair in Brisbane.

We were encouraged by the Virgin Blue staff to use my partner's manual wheelchair to get to the departure gate and to the door of the aircraft. Natasha and the crew of DJ 308 assured us that the wheelchair would be bought straight up on arrival in Melbourne for our immediate use. When it failed to materialise at the door when we disembarked, we thought it had been taken with the rest of the luggage to the carousels and oversize luggage pick-up area and so we attempted to collect it there only to be told that it had been left in Brisbane.

‘Baggage Blues’ does not quite cover the seriousness of someone's wheelchair being left behind, and this seems to be a concept completely alien to Virgin Blue staff, including the lost luggage manager Trent who made no attempt to apologise or acknowledge the gravity of the situation. Indeed, his quip that “This happens all the time” indicates a corporate culture that is completely disconnected from the needs of customers who aren't cut from the same cloth as themselves.
So, in essence, my complaint revolves around these clear deficiencies in Virgin Blue's treatment of it's ‘guests’:

• Its inability to record my partner's information in a way that communicates her needs to all staff efficiently and respectfully is demeaning and discriminatory;

• Its insistence (for whatever reason) that she not travel alone is discriminatory;

• Its flight crew's negligence in failing to load my partners wheelchair is a gross dereliction of duty and indicative of a corporate lack of consideration for people with disabilities; and

• Its luggage handling staff's callous refusal to take our concerns seriously indicate a corporate culture that is narcissistic and brainwashed by its own advertising propaganda.

Be assured, we will “get what we want” by never again flying on your substandard airline where, despite your discourse, we have never felt like ‘guests’.

Yours in bitter disappointment,

(v_quixotic)

Oils aint oils...

A Complaint about a television advertisement that showed an oil bottle leering a a woman in a bikini:

Monday 18 February 2008

Marketing Director
Castrol Australia Pty Limited
132 McCredie Road
Guildford NSW 2161

RE: Castrol Magnatec television commercial featuring Adam Gilchrist

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to make a complaint about the currently aired advertisement for Castrol Magnatec engine oil featuring Australian international cricketer of renown, Adam Gilchrist. Therefore, I am writing both to you and the Advertising Standards Bureau explaining why this advertisement is inappropriate in its current form and requesting its correction before future airings.

Whilst I have no objection to athletes endorsing products unrelated to their sporting endeavours and their fields of expertise, I do find it offensive when such endorsements feature behaviour that might constitute sexual harassment and reinforce sexist stereotypes.

The objectionable sequence involves an animated oil bottle, finding itself bounced from the tray of Mr Gilchrist's utility, flying through several domestic back yards in order to intercept its no doubt bereft owner further in his journey. Ostensibly, this sequence is mildly amusing as such chase sequences involving pursuers racing through houses and yards to head their quarry off at the pass are a popular culture cliché. However, it is perplexing and disappointing to find the lost and anxious oil bottle pausing in its flight to ... leer ... at two young women in bathing costumes before resuming its journey.

If any human protagonists were to imitate this behaviour, they would be liable to complaints of sexual harassment, an offence under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the analogous state anti-discrimination legislation. The subjects of such complaints can be called before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and face civil prosecution in the Federal Magistrate’s Court.

Section 28A of that Act declares sexual harassment as having occurred if:
(a) [a] person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to the person harassed; or

(b) engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the person harassed;

in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.

As a ‘reasonable person’, I would consider invading a young woman’s privacy by leaping over a her back fence and, finding her and her associate clad only in their bathing costumes, leering at them before making a hasty escape to be unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. Further, it is ‘reasonable’ to anticipate the young women in question would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by such behaviour.

Not only is it regrettable for an advertisement for engine oil to feature sexual harassment, it is also disappointing for utility drivers and male athletes to be depicted, by the proxy of their oil bottles’ behaviour, as unreformed misogynists.

Professional male athletes of all sporting codes are under intense media scrutiny and reports of their sexual misdemeanours have frequently wrecked their careers and personal lives in addition to the harm this conduct causes the female recipients of their unwelcome advances. In this context, advertisements like yours for Castrol Magnatec oil and many others produced by the motoring industry send confusing messages by apparently endorsing the oafish blokey behaviour which gets so many young men into so much trouble.

If your oil is as good as you claim, if it truly contains “intelligent molecules” that “protect your engine from the moment you turn the key”, you should not need to associate your product with the sexual desires of your most ignorant and unrefined customers.

I therefore request that you withdraw this commercial in its current form and refrain from airing it until the offensive scene in the chase sequence is edited from it.

Yours sincerely

etc.


The response of the advertising complaints board in a future post.

"Do you know it costs extra...?"

A complaint about taxi service in Vic-bloody-toria:

Tuesday 11th October 2007

Director
Victorian Taxi Directorate
PO Box 666
North Melbourne Vic-bloody-toria 3051

RE: CLARIFICATION OF TARIFF RULES DETERMINING RULES FOR WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXIS

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to request written clarification on the rules that drivers of wheelchair accessible taxis (Toyota Hi Ace or equivalent fitted with electric hoists, fold-up seats and clamps/straps that secure electric wheelchairs to the floor) apply in determining whether they will charge the 'standard' urban tariff of $1.52 per kilometre (or 52 cents per minute if the speed is below 21 kilometres per hour) as opposed to the 'high occupancy' urban tariff of $2.28 per kilometre (or 78 cents per minute if the speed is below 20 kilometres per hour) as indicated on the Department of Infrastructure's web page, Regulators and Licensing – Taxi Fares in Victoria.

On Sunday 26th August this year, my partner, Francis (who has cerebral palsy and uses an electric wheelchair for mobility), and I summoned an accessible taxi from the rank at the Virgin Blue arrival terminal at Melbourne Airport. At this time Francis had a vigorous discussion with the Wilson Security taxi rank attendant who seemed do have assumed Francis had an intellectual impairment in addition to her obvious physical one.
“Do you know it costs extra?” he asked repeatedly.
Francis replied that, “of course it costs extra. Everything costs extra when you have a disability...”
The driver of that taxi acknowledged the inequity of the situation and told us he would only charge the 'standard' tariff for taking us into Albert Park despite the fact that the 'high occupancy' tariff that normally applies when you request the larger vehicle as opposed to a standard car/wagon.
“That's odd”, we thought, “it's not as if we can get Francis' 92kg electric wheelchair and our luggage into the rear compartment of a wagon, let alone the boot of a car...”
As can be seen from the copy of the receipt (attached), this journey cost us $51.90 (including CityLink tolls).

This practice of charging a higher tariff when a wheelchair accessible taxi is specifically ordered by someone who doesn't have the option of using a standard vehicle is a clear case of discrimination on the ground of disability and a contravention of the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) s. 24. 1 (b) and (c) which states:
It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability or a disability of any of that other person’s associates:...
(b) in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or
(c)in the manner in which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person.

Francis and I booked another wheelchair accessible taxi for our return journey to Melbourne Airport on Thursday 30th August. On this occasion, I took the opportunity to interrogate the driver to some length on Victorian taxi tariffs. He lead me to understand that people in wheelchairs who regularly use taxis generally possess an M card (sic) that covers a $10.00 loading and unloading charge as well as half the taxi fare at the 'standard' tariff and that as Francis is from interstate and doesn't have an M card, she must pay the $10.00 loading and unloading fee and the 'high occupancy' tariff because she specifically booked a wheelchair accessible taxi instead of a standard car/wagon (or first available) taxi.This journey – identical to the first – cost Francis and I a total of $82.70. This represents a 59% surcharge for the privilege of travelling in a Victorian wheelchair accessible taxi.

Francis and I were somewhat perplexed by this. In Queens-bloody-land, the high occupancy tariff is only applied “where the hiring does not involve the carriage of a person using a wheelchair” (emphasis included) as documented in Application of Taxi Fares - Queensland Metered Taxi Fare Structure.

I have since checked the Victorian Department of Infrastructure's web page, referenced above, and found that the high occupancy tariff applies “for taxis carrying six or more passengers, and for when a larger than standard taxi is required (excluding hirings for people in a wheelchair)”.

Now, our booking of a wheelchair accessible taxi on the 30th August this year to take us from the Sebel Hotel in Albert Park to Melbourne Airport was explicitly made on the basis that it was a hiring for a person in a wheelchair and therefore subject to the standard urban tariff outlined above. Similarly, our previous request for a wheelchair accessible taxi to take us from Melbourne Airport to Albert Park was also explicitly made on the basis that it was a hiring for a person in a wheelchair and therefore subject to the standard urban tariff.

Why then did both taxi drivers (and the Wilson Security taxi rank attendant) feel they were entitled to assert that we had to pay the higher tariff? Do the rules, as related by the taxi driver above, allow the gouging of people with disability from interstate (or overseas) because they are likely to be unfamiliar with the rules and not in possession of a 'Victorian Taxi Directorate Multi Purpose Taxi Program Member Card'?

If they do, Francis and I intend to file a complaint in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

If, on the other hand, the rules are as related by the Department of Infrastructure's web site, and people in wheelchairs should not be charged the 'high occupancy' tariff, an education program needs to be put in place and I will be seeking assurances of this from yourself, the taxi company and the minister that one is implemented.

Please provide me with a written clarification of the rules for determining the correct tariff in the case where people in wheelchairs summon Victorian wheelchair accessible taxis from airport ranks and with a phone booking along with details of the steps you are taking to eliminate this blatant discrimination.

Yours in Anticipation,

etc.

Their response in a future post.