Analysis: When does an ad cross the line of “acceptable” controversy? Dan Fastnedge and Melissa Gould find out.
Controversial advertising holds a mirror up to society. It can unite us in laughter or outrage, spark debates that shape our beliefs – and sometimes expose our political differences.
But where do lines of acceptability or offensiveness get drawn?
Earlier this year the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) announced the most complained about ads ever.
Categories ranged from political advocacy to household products. And the most complained about spot belonged to Hell Pizza’s “Lust condom” mailers. The brand’s “Hell Crossed Buns” billboard came in third.
This is not surprising, given the brand is often in the headlines for its provocative campaigns. Controversy is clearly part of the marketing strategy.
But while multiple complaints might suggest widespread public criticism, our research wanted to test the changing relationship between religious belief and advertising standards: what offends New Zealanders, what pushes the boundaries, and when does an ad cross the line of “acceptable” controversy?
Religious offence vs artistic freedom
Of the 79 ASA rulings between 2005 and 2021 regarding Hell Pizza, only six were upheld in full, and two were partially upheld. This suggests that while Hell’s ads generate strong public reactions, the majority of its advertising follows established guidelines.
About 40% of the rulings responded to complaints containing religious objections, but no complaints were upheld on religious grounds.
The complainants often identified as Christian, or said they were commenting on behalf of a religious audience. They described Hell’s ads variously as “nothing short of emotional and spiritual abuse”, “grossly offensive”, “sickening”, “distasteful”, “discriminatory and insensitive” and “blasphemous”.
The ASA acknowledged Hell’s ads would naturally weave religious puns and references into their narrative, as humour is part of the company’s branding. But it ruled these “align within the boundaries of acceptable humour and satire in a tolerant society”.
The “Hell Crossed Buns” billboards racked up 178 complaints. The inclusion of a pentagram was described as “extremely offensive”, with the use of a Satanic symbol combined with the ad copy called “blasphemous” – particularly in the lead up to Easter.
The ASA responded that it was “a satirical play on commonly recognised religious imagery, which helped it stay within the bounds of artistic freedom”. The complaints were not upheld.
Hell Pizza’s 2014 Easter-themed billboard covered in rabbit skin (promoting its “rabbit pizza”) also received complaints for being disrespectful to religious groups and vegans.
While acknowledging the billboard might upset children, the ASA said it was “unlikely to cause serious and widespread offence to most people”, as rabbits are considered a pest and the skins were sourced from a local meat processor. The complaints were not upheld.
Crossing the line
The ASA has upheld complaints about eight Hell Pizza ads between 2005 and 2021, primarily those focused on profanity, graphic violence, racism or sexual themes, rather than religion.
The “most hated New Zealand campaign in history” was Hell’s “Lust” campaign from 2006, when the company delivered condoms to 170,000 homes to promote their Lust pizza.
The outrage mainly centered around the potential for children to be exposed to the unsolicited delivery of a condom. The ASA said that despite the message of safe sex having some merit, the campaign was “likely to offend a number of communities”. The complaints were upheld.
But while religion has been the main focus of the complaints against Hell’s ads, those that were upheld were not because of religious factors.
In fact, it was the “religious identity” of the pizza franchise that was often cited by the ASA as the reason why the controversial ads weren’t breaching advertising standards. That is, people should expect Hell Pizza campaigns to be dark, edgy and shocking.
Although the brand frequently walks the line between provocative humour and possible offence, the ASA rulings indicate a shift towards supporting artistic freedom – even when religious themes are involved, and especially for brands with a strong, established identity.
Created by HELL founder Callum Davies and Rewi Spraggon, a prominent Māori chef, the pizza aims to make authentic Hāngī more accessible. (Source: Breakfast)
Shifting trends and boundaries
This shift reflects changes in New Zealand society: a decline in people self-identifying as Christian, an increasing number self-identifying as agnostic or not religious, and those who do identify as religious belonging to a more diverse range of faiths.
Hell Pizza has successfully tapped into this cultural trend by pushing boundaries that previously might have sparked even more outrage.
The brand has also mastered the art of grabbing attention and media coverage that would have been impossible with only traditional paid-advertising techniques.
By inciting public debate, generating complaints and making headlines, it has built a brand identity that thrives on the backlash, using it to fuel further visibility and discussion.
How the strategy works when applied to social issues in an increasingly polarised world remains to be seen. But Hell’s recent “Go to Hell Greta” billboards in Stockholm, as well as its blood-based “to-meat-o sauce” and “AfterLife Pay” offerings, suggest the company will continue to push boundaries.
How religious complaints compare to ones concerned with other social issues, and what this tells us about changing moral and ethical attitudes, will be the focus of our next research project.
– Dan Fastnedge is a Lecturer in Advertising and Brand Creativity at the Auckland University of Technology. Melissa Gould is Head of Critical Media Studies and a Senior Lecturer at Auckland University of Technology.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.
