4 December 2012 - 5:32pm | posted by | 2 comments

SodaStream seeks legal advice after it loses Clearcast ad ban appeal

SodaStream has revealed it is “seeking legal advice” after it was announced that its planned ad campaign – “The SodaStream Effect” – will remain banned after it lost its appeal with regulatory body Clearcast.

The advert, which was set to debut in the UK on Thursday 22 November, was banned at the eleventh hour by Clearcast for promoting the “denigration of the bottled drinks market”.

The ban was upheld following an appeal that involved Clearcast and representatives of the official media owners that fund the organisation, which includes ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

“The ad could be seen to tell people not to go to supermarkets and buy soft drinks, instead help to save the environment by buying a SodaStream,” commented Clearcast at the time of the original ban.

They reinforced this position today further: “The Copy Committee has agreed with the Clearcast PCM decision that the advertisement denigrates the soft drinks industry, and is a breach of rule 3.42. Therefore with this in mind, the ad discussed is still unacceptable as it stands.”

The 30 second ad spot showed soft drinks bottles disappearing as people used SodaStream drinks makers and included the tag-line “with SodaStream you can save up to 1,000 bottles a year”. The ad itself was developed in part by Alex Bogusky and Rob Schuham of the COMMON agency, and has been shown in other markets as well as online.

SodaStream launched an interim ad “Bubble Blackout” last week as it awaited the verdict from Clearcast. “Bubble Blackout” invited viewers to watch the banned ad online and has since received over 1.2 million hits on YouTube.

SodaStream managing director, Fiona Hope, commented: “We are extremely concerned by the final decision that has been reached following the appeal. Not only do we reject the assessment that the advert is a denigration of the industry, we are also confused as to the application of the code in this context. The clause in question relates to products, fellow advertisers and advertisements, and at no point references any industry as a whole.

“We stand by our statement that there is absolutely nothing disparaging in our original campaign, as we do not mention or show a competitor brand. We’re unclear as to how SodaStream can be seen to be attacking an industry of which it is a part – it is merely trying to impact positive change on the sector.

“We are currently seeking legal advice following the decision.”


4 Dec 2012 - 17:43
rantsfromron's picture

Hmm . . . I hold no brief for SodaStream, but I do wonder if Clearcast is, itself, in need of regulation. This decision makes no sense at all and they would appear to be out of control.

5 Dec 2012 - 10:48
tover_banda's picture

Please sign in or register to comment on this article.

Latest Projects from the Profile Hub

Sports Bra Award Win

Our super-star lingerie client, Wacoal Eveden, is...

Malibu - creating the perfect brand moment to enhance engagement

The challenge How do you change customers’ perception of...

Driving Sales From Social During Black Friday

The craze of Black Friday crossed the pond and hit the UK...


‘Jack’ – the infectious track by British producer Breach...

Launching the Seasonal Cities App

In Q3 2014 Rooster was tasked with launching the new travel...