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.
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?
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.
