Chicken Licken, Joe Public 'not making fun of OCD,' says advertising regulator
The advertisement
The advertisement features a man who struggles comically with making even the simplest decisions, such as choosing between two flavours of ice cream or which seat to take at an empty table.
The narrative culminates at a Chicken Licken outlet, where the man is confronted with yet another decision—choosing between two meal options. Just as he becomes overwhelmed, the cashier informs him, “Sir, you don’t have to choose, you can have both, and a loaf, for fifty bucks.” His relief, however, is short-lived when she asks if he prefers "Original" or "Soulfire" spicing, triggering his indecisiveness once again.
The complaint
The complainant argued that the ad trivialises OCD and mental health struggles, portraying indecision in a way that perpetuates stigma. The complainant stated:
The commercial makes a mockery of a man with obsessive compulsive disorder... It is insensitive towards those with mental health challenges, who already face unnecessary stigmatisation.
The response
In response, the advertising agency Joe Public, representing Chicken Licken, emphasised that the ad was intended to be humorous and relatable, using light-hearted scenarios to promote their "Soul Square Meal." The agency argued that the commercial’s hyperbolic nature was evident and that a reasonable viewer would interpret the ad as harmless and amusing. It also noted that the ad had reached over five million television viewers and 850,000 YouTube viewers, with only one formal complaint lodged.
The agency maintained that the commercial neither imposes any disadvantage on people with mental health conditions nor negatively stereotypes them. Instead, it simply uses humour and exaggeration to highlight the appeal of not having to choose between options.
The ruling
The ARB Directorate evaluated the complaint under Clause 1 of Section II (offensive advertising) and Clause 3.4 of Section II (unacceptable advertising – discrimination) of the Code of Advertising Practice.
Clause 1 prohibits advertising that causes serious, widespread, or sectoral offence. The Directorate acknowledged that some viewers might find it slightly triggering but noted that offence to a few does not automatically warrant removal. It concluded that the ad, viewed in context, did not cause serious or widespread offence.
Clause 3.4 prohibits discriminatory advertising that imposes burdens or perpetuates stereotypes. The Directorate found no evidence that the ad depicted individuals with OCD or any mental health condition in a negative light. The character’s indecision was portrayed in an exaggerated and humorous manner, relatable to most viewers, rather than as a symptom of a specific mental health issue.
The ARB ruled that the character’s behaviour was not indicative of OCD, or any other psychological condition, and that most people have experienced indecisiveness which is a normal human experience. It emphasised that the ad relied on hyperbole to drive its punchline and promote Chicken Licken’s offering.
