“She pointed out that this commercial‚ that promotes a product that only the rich can afford‚ is flighted every day in citizens’ faces‚” said the directorate. “Which engenders anger and bitterness in a country that is already battling with racism.”In response, Oakhurst Insurance Company, which runs Dotsure, said that the complaint was vexatious and frivolous. Oakhurst reportedly challenged the viewer to prove why it was more offensive to poor people than any other advertisement for luxury goods. Are designer fragrances offensive, or the latest smartphones? How about single-malt whiskey or high fashion or holidays to the Bahamas? Are Tag Heuer watches insensitive? Damn you, Tag, with your avant-garde Swiss perfection. Why can't I afford you, expensive thing advertised on TV, is it because you're insensitive? The ASA dismissed the complaint, saying:
“It is undeniable that the advertised product is a luxury good. It appears‚ though‚ that [the viewer] is of the view that because it is a luxury product‚ and of a particular type‚ it should not be advertised. There is no provision that prohibits promotion of luxury goods. [The viewer] may be offended by people insuring dogs [but] the fact remains that [Dotsure] has identified a target market and the advertised product is legitimate.”So much for that, then. But we thought we’d ask some questions in anyway.