Two Advertising Standards Authority rulings issued on the same day have renewed scrutiny of how creative content changes when it appears in public or broadly accessible media.
The regulator upheld a complaint against Jaded London over an email showing a model holding a lit cigarette, concluding that the presentation irresponsibly associated smoking with glamour.
The email, seen in May, featured a model wearing a pink backless mini dress beside a scooter and water. Jaded London argued that the cigarette was not the focus of the image and said it would not use smoking-related content in future campaigns.
The ASA determined that the execution breached the advertising code’s requirement for marketing communications to be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society. The advertisement must not appear again in the form complained of.
In a separate ruling, the regulator considered television, streaming, and poster advertising used by Warner Bros Entertainment UK to promote Lee Cronin’s horror film The Mummy.
Complaints focused particularly on posters showing a small mummified figure. The ASA concluded that the image created a realistic impression of a dead child and was unsuitable for an untargeted outdoor medium where children and other members of the public could encounter it.
The placement of one poster near a children’s nursery intensified concern about the campaign. The decision does not prevent horror films from using disturbing imagery, but it requires advertisers to consider the unavoidable audience created by an outdoor site.
Although the two cases involve different products and creative intentions, both rulings concentrate on context rather than creative intent alone. One concerns the use of smoking as a visual device in fashion advertising, while the other concerns material designed to convey the disturbing character of a horror film.
Dan Gee, co-founder and chief strategy officer at media planning agency MFM, said: “Two advertising rulings landing on the same day offer a useful reminder: creative strategy and media planning cannot be separated.
“I am not especially troubled by The Mummy poster. Horror advertising is meant to unsettle, and reasonable people can disagree about where the line sits. The smoking execution is different. Using cigarettes as a shorthand for glamour in a prominent public medium crosses a line that advertisers should understand without requiring regulatory intervention.”
The Jaded London decision shows how familiar visual shorthand can carry wider regulatory meaning. Cigarettes have long appeared in fashion photography as symbols of rebellion, detachment, or sophistication, but their use in commercial communications sits against established public health restrictions and decades of work intended to reduce the social appeal of smoking.
The Mummy ruling presents a more difficult question because discomfort is inherent to horror marketing. The commercial objective is to create unease and recognition without exposing an unrestricted audience to material likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
Placement determines how that balance is judged. An image shown within an age-restricted cinema environment, specialist publication, or deliberately selected digital audience is encountered differently from a poster positioned on a public route.
Gee said: “But the broader point is not that regulation constrains advertising. Guardrails give advertising the social permission to operate as a growth driver. They reassure the public that brands using television, radio, cinema, newsbrands and outdoor media are accountable to clear standards, with visible consequences when they get things wrong.
“That trust contributes to the outsized impact of public media. The environment signals legitimacy, but it also creates greater responsibility. A creative idea cannot be judged independently of where it will appear, who will encounter it and how the context changes its meaning.”
Media planners are often brought into campaigns after the central creative concept has been approved. By that stage, changing an image, message, or treatment can become expensive and politically difficult, even when the chosen placement creates obvious regulatory or reputational risks.
The debate over business responsibility across regulated and under-regulated media has exposed a related tension. Public and established media channels tend to operate with clearer accountability, while digital platforms can provide extensive reach without consistent safeguards.
Gee added: “This is why media planners need to be involved before the campaign is finished. Creative and media should work to the same strategy, balancing impact, audience, context and responsibility from the outset.
“The contrast with under-regulated social platforms is stark: abundant reach, inconsistent safeguards and steadily diminishing public trust.”
Advertising decisions are now divided across agencies, in-house teams, platforms, and automated buying systems. That fragmentation can leave responsibility split between the organisation producing an image, the team selecting an audience, and the system determining where the advertisement appears.
Automated placement adds further complexity because the physical or digital environment may not be visible to the creative team when a campaign is approved. Brand safety controls can reduce that risk, but they depend on accurate categories, exclusion lists, location data, and active oversight.
The ASA rulings reinforce that the advertiser remains responsible for the combined result. Creative impact, likely audience, placement, and the social meaning of the imagery must be assessed together before a campaign enters a public environment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.