The Iceland Christmas advert was cynical, but certainly not political

Nothing gains you notoriety quite like being forbidden. So Iceland found last month with its Christmas advert. The 90 second clip, of a budding friendship between a little girl and an orangutan whose habitat is being destroyed, is succinct and emotive. With Emma Thompson’s reassuring cadences narrating the story, it was surely a recipe for festive success?

And then the cartoon about a child and a furry animal was banned from television broadcast. Clearcast – the organisation responsible for approving adverts on behalf of commercial television channels – deemed the advert political, which made it unfit for television advertising.

The response was outrage. What, people demanded to know, was political about this advert? It tells an unpalatable story, yes, but an undeniable one – that pristine rainforest is being destroyed in order that palm oil plantations can expand. This obviously has an impact on the orangutan population which calls the rainforest home. It is estimated that 150,000 orangutans have died as a direct consequence of the palm oil industry since 2002. So far, nothing political – just fact.

Iceland saw an opportunity to utilise an already well-made, emotive video for its own ends

To be fair to Clearcast, it does not claim that the content of the advert was political. In its 9 November notice, Clearcast explains the grounds on which it prevented the advert from being broadcast: “An advertisement contravenes the prohibition on political advertising if it is: An advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature.”

Let’s break this down. The body to which Clearcast refers is Greenpeace, which originally made the film. But did Greenpeace insert the advert, or did Iceland do it on Greenpeace’s behalf? No. Iceland saw an opportunity to utilise an already well-made, emotive video for its own ends. With Greenpeace’s permission, they removed all of the charity’s branding. It is hard to see why, at this point, it mattered that the film was conceived by Greenpeace.

Iceland’s intention was the same as that of all advertisers; to single out its products or services as better in some way than those of its competitors. On the surface the advert may have drawn attention to deforestation, but the sneaky subsidiary was to highlight Iceland’s commitment to remove all palm oil from its own-brand products by the end of the year.

Of course this advert was not an entirely altruistic move from Iceland. But the advertising authorities should not punish companies for being cynical

Iceland is the first UK supermarket to make such an ambitious commitment, and it is natural that they should want to advertise it. To (attempt to) do so in the way they did was smart. With the story of Rang-Tan, Iceland could present itself as a company with a conscience, a supermarket aware of its impact on the wider world and making ethical decisions based on that awareness. So don’t let Emma Thompson’s dulcet tones fool you – of course this advert was not an entirely altruistic move from Iceland. But the advertising authorities should not punish companies for being cynical.

Returning to Clearcast’s statement, the second half is also problematic. It describes Greenpeace as “a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature.” But Greenpeace is a registered charity in the UK and charities in the UK cannot have a political purpose (or at least, a political purpose must not be their raison d’être). To remove the advert on the basis that Greenpeace is a political body is therefore a contradiction in terms.

Even if we were to accept that Greenpeace was a political body (which it isn’t) Clearcast’s reasoning remains hopeless. Their palm oil campaign is not one in which Greenpeace seeks to change government policy (i.e. “political”), but the behaviour of big companies who buy palm oil and therefore propagate rainforest destruction, such as Unilever, Mondelez and Nestlé. In other words: not political.

Greenpeace and Iceland have drawn attention to an inconvenient truth; to environmental damage that we are too scared, lazy, or short-sighted to confront

I might not be an expert in advertising law, but it looks rather like the general consternation surrounding the advert’s television ban is not unreasonable. Rang-Tan’s story contains no political message in and of itself; and the company which originally produced it (no longer even present in Iceland’s version) is not a political one. So why really was it banned?

Greenpeace and Iceland have drawn attention to an inconvenient truth; to environmental damage that we are too scared, lazy, or short-sighted to confront. Clearcast’s refusal to let the advert be broadcast is symptomatic of a widespread fear and therefore rejection of environmental issues, because they demand a confrontation with the greed implicit in our way of life.

Perhaps Iceland’s Christmas advert was a cynical move, but that doesn’t make its message any less important. More people need to understand the impacts of their choices as consumers. Ironically, Clearcast’s ban and the controversy it provoked may provide the ignition for that conversation to become more widespread.