The ad said the following:
“Oh, there’s a great deal on ripen at home avocados. Sure, they’ll be hard as rock for the first 18 days, three hours and 20 minutes, then they’ll be ready to eat, for about 10 minutes, then they’ll go off. For a better deal, head to Costa Coffee and grab a delicious, piping hot bacon roll or egg muffin for just £2 ($2.60) when you buy any medio or massimo hot drink or flat white before 11 a.m.”
Two humorless viewers filed complaints that accused the company of “discouraging the selection of fresh fruit.” Such a complaint should receive a response of “ok, so what?” But this is the United Kingdom and the ad was claimed to be a breach ASA’s rule banning advertisers from “disparag[ing] good dietary practice.” The ASA did not missed a beat (or show any self-awareness of the absurdity of its position) in proclaiming “We considered that, although the ad was light-hearted, it nevertheless suggested avocados were a poor breakfast choice, and that a bacon roll or egg muffin would be a better alternative, and in doing so discouraged the selection of avocados.”
The key to this ridiculous decision is that the company referred to a “better deal” to describe the breakfast sandwiches. That was deemed as discouraging “good dietary practice.”
For those who embrace speech crimes and regulations, this is where such erosion of free speech takes you. Officials empowered with this authority tend to bar what they deem to be bad speech–like joking about avocados.
