Chicken Licken ad gets green light after being accused of mocking those struggling with mental health [VIDEO]

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has ruled in favour of Chicken Licken after a complaint about the ad making a mockery of people who live and struggle with mental health.

The commercial follows a middle-aged man who contends with being indecisive.

Through brief scenarios in the ad, the man who is portrayed by media personality Phila Mazibuko, seems incapable of deciding between two or more trivial options.

He often does this to the frustration of his family and his colleagues.

Towards the end, he has to choose between two meal options at a Chicken Licken outlet. Just as he appears overwhelmed, the lady at the register informs him that he does not need to choose, but that he can have both.

Relieved about not having to choose, the lady at the counter asks a question that sends him back into a spot of dither. “Original or Soul Fire?” she asks.

ALSO READ: Here’s why Cassper’s Don Billiato advert was pulled

The complaint

The complaint against the commercial came at the end of November.

In their submission, the complainant said the fast food outlet’s ad “makes a mockery of a man with obsessive-compulsive disorder, who struggles with decision-making, even with small decisions”.

Titled Piki Piki Mabelane, which is derived from a childhood game of choosing, usually played by young kids, the commercial was made by advertising agency Joe Public.

Joe Public said nothing in the commercial unduly imposes any burden or obligation on those affected by mental health in general (or obsessive compulsive disorder specifically), nor is there anything that withholds any benefit or service from them.

It argued that the ad was promoting the sale of a specific meal, which they said “offers consumers the option of having the best of both worlds (hotwings and pieces of chicken) as opposed to having to choose one over the other”.

Joe Public pointed out that the commercial is clearly meant to be humorous, as it uses relatable, light-hearted scenarios to depict the appeal of not having to choose one option over another.

The advertiser stressed that advertising often contains a healthy dose of hyperbole to amuse viewers and that this example is no different.

“The fact that this is a single complaint about a commercial that has reached over five million TV viewers and more than 850 000 YouTube viewers demonstrates that the complainant’s interpretation does not represent those of the general public,” the advertiser argued.

ALSO READ: ‘My sister met her husband here’: Jason Goliath shares his favourite memories as Kitcheners reopens [VIDEO]

The ruling

In its finding, the Directorate of the ARB considered two Clauses: Clause 1 of Section II (Offensive advertising) and Clause 3.4 of Section II (Unacceptable advertising – Discrimination).

According to the Directorate, the former specifies that advertising should not cause serious widespread or sectoral offence.

However, clause 1 of Section II also recognises that the fact that a particular commercial may be offensive to some does not automatically warrant its removal.

While Clause 3.4 of Section II reads: “No advertisements may contain content of any description that is discriminatory unless, in the opinion of the ARB, such discrimination is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.”

The directorate said it recognises that the inability to make decisions can be a symptom of a number of psychological disorders and profiles and that these people might find the storyline in the commercial slightly triggering.

“However, indecisiveness is also something most people have experienced at some point in their lives, especially when ordering from a menu.

“It is not entirely clear why the complainant believes that it is OCD that the character is suffering from,” said the Directorate, admitting that they aren’t experts in psychological or neurological afflictions.

“However, the directorate does not interpret the actions of a man to be specifically indicative of someone who has obsessive or compulsive behaviour.”

Later in the ruling, the directorate said for the advertiser’s joke to stick, the main character needs to be shown to be extremely indecisive.

“Objectively speaking, the directorate does not believe that the commercial is likely to cause serious widespread or sectoral offence in a manner that contravenes the code,” the ruling concluded.

NOW READ: ‘Testament to great theatre and acting’ – Sello Maake KaNcube on ‘The Suit’ returning to Joburg Theatre