Vets on Sets: Clearcast’s Guide on What to Do When Featuring Animals in Your Ad
We’re a nation of animal lovers. And this means that viewers are often curious about the welfare of animals shown on TV, even in ads. Luckily, there’s a stipulation in the BCAP code which requires creators to ensure the safety of any animal, great or small, used within their ad. So, what does this mean for you?
- A qualified vet or trained animal handler must be present on set to oversee the wellbeing of any animals during the filming process, “to ensure that they are properly treated and cared for throughout production”.
- During the clearance process, you must provide Clearcast with a letter from the professional who attended set, attesting to the wellbeing of the animals during filming.
This important step means that if a complaint should arise about any furry, scaled or feathered friends in your ad, Clearcast can provide the ASA with said letter, protecting your brand. Simple.
Complaints ‘The ASA frequently receives complaints about the way in which animals have been featured, expressing concern about how the animals have been treated and/or the risk of harm and emulation. …Even if the ASA decide that the presentation is the right side of the line in terms of the Codes, the number of complaints these issues usually attract means they often become subject to extensive media coverage, comment and debate, as well as criticism from animal protection groups and consumers alike.’ Animals – ASA | CAP.
Why a vet?
Animals can’t advocate for themselves and it’s all too easy to project our human emotions and preconceived ideas onto them. While we might see a dog on set wag their tail and assume they’re happy, this behaviour could mean numerous things, not all of them good. A quick search on dog body language will reveal how complex their use of ear, or tail posture is – considerably more complex than most of us know! So, even when we’re doing our best, someone who’s been specifically trained to look after animals is the only person who should be providing assurance of their wellbeing.
Therefore, an animal’s owner is not a credible source of assurance, unless that owner is also a licenced and professional animal welfare expert. This means that a letter from the owner of a pet featured in an ad, stating that they were happy to have them filmed, is not acceptable confirmation.
When is it needed?
Anytime a live animal is filmed for an ad. And this refers to any animal, great or small. Yes, the obvious cats and dogs, but also fish, birds and anything else, even insects! In fact, the CAP advice states that “regardless of the content of the ad, all animals featured should be well looked after and must not be harmed or distressed in the process.” So, the ASA, the broadcasters and the public trust Clearcast to seek assurance that an animal expert was on hand to advocate for the little guys.
Having said this, there are times where we may not ask for a letter. For example:
- Stock footage
- Farmed fish who were processed before the production
- CGI or other animation
- Charity appeal footage
- Reportage
- Zoos or safari parks using footage of their animals, as the animal’s handler would be on set to oversee filming
What should be included in the letter?
In our experience, vets hired to be on set are familiar with what’s required of them. But, to give you an idea, we’d expect the letter to contain confirmation:
- Of the animal’s basic details, e.g. ‘Teddy’ the male poodle, 4 years old
- That they were examined before, during and after filming
- That they were safe, sufficiently cared for and not overworked, mistreated or exploited
- That they had access to food, water, a rest area and a quiet space
- That their transport to and from the filming location was safe and comfortable
Extra tip ‘Be mindful of the risk of emulation. However light-hearted the execution, marketers should take care when considering depicting anything that is potentially harmful to animals and could feasibly result in harmful emulation.’ Animals – ASA | CAP
Where does it fit into the clearance process?
During stage one of the clearance process, when you submit a script, your Copy Clearance Executive at Clearcast will apply the code ‘vet’ (sometimes shown as ‘@vet’) if it contains any mention of an animal. This restriction lets you know that you’ll need to have a vet or animal handler present during the filming process. We’ll generally ask you about the intention to film any animals, to make sure we’re applying it correctly.
Then, once the ad has been filmed, you can move onto stage two, where you’ll upload a rough cut video of the ad. Here, you should also upload the vet’s letter, into the substantiation section.
And that’s it! Your Copy Executive will then be able to review the letter and hopefully approve your ad (as long as everything else is compliant of course!). Plus, they’ll be ready with the evidence to prove that any animals in your ad were well cared for, should any complaints arise.
If you have any questions about featuring an animal in your ad, reach out to your Clearcast contact for advice (email if you’re not sure who that is), or meet our veterinary consultant for expert help. Pushing boundaries in your ad? Book a session with Copy Development.
Some further reading
- The ASA expects advertisers to familiarise themselves with good practices: British Veterinary Association
- Social Responsibility guidance includes dangerous and copyable behaviour
- Joke-y uses of animals can still be unsafe
- ‘Complaints about VW’s shivering dog set to top 500’
Some relevant ASA case studies
- The complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful, because it implied it was acceptable to feed Christmas pudding to dogs, and some complainants also were concerned the ad could encourage children to feed Christmas pudding to dogs.
- Some complainants, including the RSPCA, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it was harmful to the dog that appeared in the ad.
- Most complainants, including the RSPCA, objected that the ad was irresponsible as they believed the ad might encourage children or adults to emulate behaviours which they believed were potentially unsafe for them and their dogs.
- Twenty-one viewers, who believed the ad might encourage children or adults to emulate behaviour, which they believed was potentially unsafe for them and their dogs, objected that the ad was irresponsible.
- A number of complainants challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
- A number of complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful, because they felt it was likely to encourage cruelty to animals.
- One complainant challenged whether the ad was unsuitable for broadcast before 9 pm.
