Debate over artistic freedom as ARB orders withdrawal of property ad

The ARB ruled that the altered advertisement violated advertising standards by creating a false impression that the proposed development would be surrounded solely by trees, omitting neighboring residential properties.

The complaint, filed by a neighbouring resident, alleged that the ad’s digitally enhanced images presented the development as enveloped by uninterrupted greenery, with surrounding homes and structures edited out. The complainant provided both the advertisement and an area map to demonstrate that the land, specifically Erf 285, included a residence, pool, and landscaped area, as well as adjacent homes on neighboring plots. By omitting these features, the complainant argued, the ad fostered unrealistic expectations about the site's surroundings, potentially misleading consumers interested in the "off-plan" purchase of the development.

Aview Properties' response

Aview Properties defended its advertisement by emphasising the creative and aspirational nature of marketing visuals, comparing the practice to stylised images in commercial ads that are not meant to depict literal reality.

Marketing is not an exact replica to reality, an example being that of a certain commercial, where rain drops turned into Jelly Tots. Viewers understand that the said scenario is not possible as raindrops cannot turn into Jelly Tots.

The company argued that the ad was intended to draw focus to the development itself, not to serve as an exact replica of the site’s environment. Additionally, the company noted that the complainant’s status as a neighbouring resident might suggest a personal stake rather than a matter of public interest.

Ad watchdog rules Coastal Hire did not promote GBV

Karabo Ledwaba  18 Oct 2024

In its response, Aview asserted that the advertised image was clearly an artist’s impression and that buyers should understand it as such. The developer also pointed out that potential buyers receive legally binding documents outlining the actual layout, location, and structure of the project and are encouraged to visit the site, which would provide a clear view of the actual surroundings.

ARB’s ruling and decision

Despite Aview’s arguments, the ARB determined that the image crossed a line from artistic representation to deception by altering significant elements of the location to create a more appealing, yet inaccurate, setting. The board acknowledged that while advertising often employs stylised depictions, these are permissible only when they remain hyperbolic or clearly fictional, such as imaginative product portrayals intended to catch the eye without being taken literally.

However, in this case, the ARB concluded that the advertisement implied a misleading level of isolation and seclusion in a densely populated area. According to Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice, advertisements cannot contain visuals that, through omission or alteration, mislead consumers regarding the product’s reality. The ARB reasoned that, unlike a lighthearted exaggeration, the altered image could reasonably lead potential buyers to believe that the development would be surrounded by unspoiled nature without nearby residences, a claim found to be inaccurate.

The ARB further noted that such a misleading impression cannot be corrected through disclosure in a subsequent purchase contract, as the consumer’s expectations have already been shaped by the initial advertisement. Thus, the ARB ruled that the ad was in contravention of advertising standards and instructed Aview Properties to withdraw it in its current form.