A couple of weeks ago, someone wrote in this column about the dangers of censoring commercials such as the Rover ’hostage’ film.

A couple of weeks ago, someone wrote in this column about the

dangers of censoring commercials such as the Rover ’hostage’ film.

In the UK, we live in the most censor-mad country in Western Europe -

for example, our film industry is regulated by an unelected body,

answerable to no-one, with a head who has no time limit on his tenure of


Major UK film-makers have to kow-tow to stop their movies being mauled

by philistines (in France this would be regarded as an act of

vandalism similar to cutting a piece out of the Mona Lisa).

Censors everywhere, of course, behave in the same manner, and continue

to act the way they do because people are too afraid of the likely

consequences of taking them on. In advertising, we have problems with

the BACC and the RACC. Their rulings are anachronistic, inconsistent and

frequently bizarre, and people in ad agencies are spending an absurd

amount of time involved in Alice-in-Wonderland-style negotiations with

them, almost always over pieces of work that, in 1997, wouldn’t offend a

maiden aunt. The upshot is that the weakest ideas (or work with no idea)

usually appear, because the current system mitigates in favour of dull

work and against interesting work.

There needs to be a body that protects the public from dishonest or

illegal advertising, that reacts to complaints from viewers, and is

able, like the Advertising Standards Authority, to distinguish the

genuine grievances from the rantings of a few nutcases. The BACC and

RACC system, however, operates on the assumption that if some people

might complain, it’s grounds for non-approval. They staff themselves

with too many inexperienced people and allows no effective appeal

against decisions which are frequently based on fear, internal politics,

power broking or downright stupidity - decisions that are often in

contravention of freedom of speech or the rights of our clients to do

business properly.

It would be unfortunate if a big client one day decided to take the BACC

to court to assert its legal right to talk about its product truthfully

on the telly, but it’s bound to happen one day, unless the censors get


There could be a solution to all this, however. With Tim Mellors being

installed as the new president of D&AD, perhaps there’s an opportunity

for an independent body like D&AD, maybe alongside the IPA, to arbitrate

in disputes with the advisory bodies, educate them, and make suggestions

(such as a 9pm watershed applying to advertising as well as to the

programmes it interrupts). D&AD’s remit, after all, is to support and

encourage creative excellence, and nobody is doing more than the BACC to

interfere with that aim. How about it, Tim?

Send your rants (around 400 words, please) to Diary Editor, Campaign,

174 Hammersmith Road, London W6 7JP.


Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus