Day 054 - 24 Nov 94 - Page 28

     
     1        raise questions as to if it is not permitted in
     2        advertising, then a responsible food company, I would have
     3        thought, would have not wanted to use the same techniques
     4        in other situations which, perhaps, are not covered by the
     5        same guidelines or rules.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  But you said before that the effect of the actual
     8        ads may in any case be that effect of generating love and
     9        loyalty through using ronald mcdonald?
    10        A.  Yes, whilst the ITC would not permit this to be overtly
    11        stated, I think, as I mentioned earlier, there is a grey, a
    12        very grey, area and I do believe the ITC has in the past
    13        permitted advertising that has more indirect messages
    14        which, if they were more direct, would not be permitted.
    15        Nonetheless, it can be argued, I would argue, that the net
    16        effect, the sum effect, could be very much the same.
    17
    18   MS. STEEL:   I do not know whether there is anything else you
    19        wanted to say about ronald mcdonald, if not, whether there
    20        was anything you wanted to say about the other characters
         that are used?
    22        A.  Yes.  I was going to refer to the character
    23        "Hamburglar".  Again I do not have a page number.
    24
    25   Q.   Which edition?  This is 1987 one?
    26        A.  It is the same edition we were just referring to; it is
    27        the page entitled "The Hamburglar".
    28
    29   Q.   I think it is 99.  If you want to carry on?
    30        A.  The Golden Arches Code describes the main purpose of
    31        Hamburglar in life is the acquisition of McDonald's
    32        hamburgers.  He is not above borrowing them without no
    33        thought of payment -- and, in fact, nobody expects payment.
    34
    35   Q.   What would be your concerns about that?
    36        A.  I think it could be argued that Hamburglar is not
    37        altogether a responsible character, this is not responsible
    38        behaviour.  In addition to what I have just read out, it
    39        goes on to say his behaviour never angers anybody in
    40        McDonaldland, in particular, the temptation is too great
         for him to resist.  I think the implication is that
    42        children will find McDonald's too tempting to resist.
    43
    44   Q.   So, the problem is likely to be that kids may, children
    45        may, copy his behaviour?  Is that what you are saying or
    46        not?  I mean, say if it is not correct.
    47        A.  They may copy his behaviour and, to that extent, I do
    48        not think it is responsible behaviour.  But I think it is
    49        more than that; I think it is the acquisitiveness of the
    50        character beyond ----- 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You are not so much concerned that he may 
    53        encourage children to snatch other children's food -- maybe
    54        you are -- but it is a method of making burgers look
    55        particularly desirable to children, is that what you are
    56        saying or is there more to it?
    57        A.  I think there is an element of the former, in that as
    58        portrayed on the page here, that it is not responsible
    59        behaviour, and the ITC Code of Practice does rule out
    60        behaviour that may not be considered socially acceptable.