The ultra-strict UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned social media ads for Burger King’s ‘Rebel Whopper’ Plant-Based Burger after a pile of complaints from Vegetarians and Vegans that the menu item was misrepresented as being appropriate for them. Burger King UK (BKUK) insists that it was clear and transparent in its ads, and that’s resulted in some serious V-backlash…
One of the hotly disputed Burger King UK social media ads for
its Rebel Whopper. Misleading? You be the judge…
Remember when the ASA banned ads by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that asked, “If you wouldn’t eat your dog, why eat a turkey?” It was the accompanying visuals more than the question itself that caused the uproar over that one. Now the ASA has come down on the side of Vegetarians and Vegans who claim that BK Facebook and Twitter ads for its new ‘Rebel Whopper’ were misleading.
The issue
“Ten complainants, who understood that the Rebel Whopper was not suitable for Vegans or Vegetarians and those with Egg allergies because it was cooked alongside meat products and used egg-based mayonnaise, challenged whether the claims “100% Whopper No Beef” and “plant-based burger” in ads […] were misleading.”
The problem
BK made what in retrospect may have been a bad decision to fight the ASA ruling, claiming the Rebel Patties are indeed 100% Plant-based and pointed out that it had included advisories in the ads about the fact that the Plant-based Burgers were cooked ‘alongside’ Real Meat Burger Patties, a message intended to convey the meaning that they were cooked on the same grills and, therefore, might be contaminated with Real Meat residues. On the issue of the Mayo, well, Real Mayo is always made with Eggs. Leave it up to Vegetarians to decide if they are of the variety that allows Eggs in their diet of choice. They could always have asked to have it left off when they ordered.
The crux of the matter
The complainants apparently relied heavily on the claim, in the ads, that stated: “You asked and we listened. Introducing the Rebel Whopper, our first plant-based burger!” Seems the part about ‘You asked’ implied to some that it was Vegetarians and Vegans who asked, and therefore had a right to expect that BK would reply with a Plant-based Burger entirely suitable for them. The ASA said that the BK disclaimer about how the Burgers were prepared was insufficient, and said that the inclusion of the logo of The Vegan Butcher, the company that supplies the Rebel Patties, further suggested that the menu item was suitable for Vegetarians and Vegans.
The result
The BK social media ads were banned by the ASA as misleading. And BKUK took a bashing from Vegans ad Vegetarians.
My take
I have to come down on BK’s side on some of the particulars issues in this case. They didn’t lie or mislead about their Rebel Patty being 100% Plant-based, and they did disclose that it was being cooked on the same grill as Beef Parries. The ASA admitted that much in its ruling, but made much of the Mayonnaise angle, saying no warning was given in the ads that the Burger contained Mayo. The ASA also insisted that the fact that the Rebel Whopper was launched during ‘Veganuary’, the annual promotional month for Vegan foods and practices, “contributed further to the impression that the product was suitable for vegans and vegetarians.”
While I applaud the previous ASA ruling banning the Christmas Season PETA ad, I can’t endorse their banning the BK Rebel Whopper ads, a decision clearly made on flimsy evidence. At what point should consumers be expected to take responsibility for their buying and consuming choices? Like I said, everybody – especially Vegetarians, Vegans and those with Egg allergies – should know that Real Mayo always contains Eggs. And the responsibility for reading the small print, about how the Patties are cooked, is clearly on the complainants. No complaint based on key information being rendered in small print would never stand up in a court of law. That precedent was established decades ago.
On balance… I have to say I have a real problem with people who claim they have been misled when they haven’t performed due diligence on an issue. They want everybody else to look after them, and spare them the effort and responsibility. In the UK, they call that ‘The Nanny State’, and it is universally detested.
~ Maggie J.