The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) has dismissed the complaints lodged against the Cell C “dog humping” ad.

This comes after the advertising authority received over 150 complaints against the advert which shows a dog humping a guy paying at the teller, buying petrol, and paying for a parking ticket as a way to portray how people are being screwed over.

The complaints pointed out that the advert was too explicit and not suitable for children consumption, that it is offensive as it is of a sexual nature and that it is misleading as it portrays behaviour that is not usual conduct of dogs and the other complaints pointed out the possible animal cruelty.

Here is ASA’s ruling:

"For the commercial to be offensive, it would have to be shown that it contains references that are regarded as inappropriate and offensive under prevailing societal norms and sensitivities.

It is accepted that the commercial contains a sexual metaphor, but it is one that its target audience will understand to convey the message that Cell C offers products / services that are better value for money, unlike other instances where the consumer is constantly being "screwed”. While people might be uncomfortable with the puppet dog performing a sexual like act, it does not automatically make the communication offensive.

The closing voice over in the commercial says, inter alia, "If you’re tired of being taken advantage of maybe it’s time to

try the cellular network that gives you more for less...” this further reinforces the message.

While the Directorate accepts that some people might find the commercial crass, and the notion of a dog mounting a man’s leg as crude and in poor taste, it is satisfied that the obvious metaphor would not be lost on the average consumer.

The Code affords the Directorate some discretion in dismissing complaints even in instances where there is more than one complainant. This is such an instance as the commercial clearly aims at sympathising with consumers who might feel this way. The likely discomfort that many consumers might have appears reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom."

The advertising authority also states that the advert does not contravene clause 1 of Section II of the code which deals with children and states that “advertising should not cause children mental, physical, emotional or moral harm”.

“The complainants submitted that the commercial is obscene and unsuitable for children. While it is interesting to note that the majority of complainants were objecting to the fact that they now have to canvas a touchy subject as a result of the commercial, there seems to be little argument made that the commercial would actually cause children mental, moral, emotional or physical harm,” ruled the ad authority.

ASA also said that the respondent (Cell C) addressed the concerns of the complainants by airing the advert during “watershed period” which is between 9pm and 5am.

“The respondent’s undertaking to only flight the commercial at post-watershed times, and not during any children’s programming, appears to address the complainant’s concerns.

“It is also noted that this campaign is clearly not aimed at children, because the service offered caters for adults.”

Cell C is also requested to cancel any scheduled airing outside the watershed times with immediate effect.