Complaints about 'Mad Max' VTNZ advertisement shot down by regulator

Mr Road Commander removing a flame thrower from his 'Mad Max' style car in a VTNZ television advert. Photo / YouTube

Two complaints about VTNZ's 'Mad Max' television advertisement have been shot down by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The advert, produced by the Wellington-based vehicle testing company, shows a fictional character, Mr Road Commander, taking his 'Mad Max' style car into VTNZ to get a WoF (Warrant of Fitness).

The VTNZ employee says in part: "Well your tread's great, but this flame thrower is a little bit of a no no and the harpoon is not compliant either."

Mr Road Commander removes the vehicle accessories while the assessor says "we did put some new blades on." Mr Road Commander appears excited until he realises she means wiper blades.

The vehicle is given a pass and ends with Mr Road Commander conveying this outcome to "Gary" who is chained up on the back of the vehicle.

The ASA received two complaints from people who were concerned that a "non-compliant" vehicle had been given a pass, giving customers a misleading impression about what could pass a WoF inspection.

One complainant said: "The rear wheels have no guards and the front scoop is dangerous. Would miss [a WoF pass] on these two counts alone. Not 'good to go' at all. A bit too cute? I get VTNZ handle WoF, but this ad gives the impression everything else on the car is compliant, when it's not."

Another complainant was quick to point out the vehicle had no mudguards over the wheels which is a requirement under WoF regulations.

"Possibility sending a message to young drivers in particular that this type of vehicle is compliant," they said.

The advertiser responded to the complaints saying the advert was designed to engage New Zealanders in an appealing way about vehicle maintenance, and that Mr Road Commander was a fictional character who required a vehicle certification and never intended it as a real-life example of how to pass a WoF.

In addition, the advertiser addressed the technical concerns raised by the complainants with regard to the mudguard and front scoop by explaining the Low Volume Vehicle (LVV) Certificate process.

The ASA ruled in favour of the advertiser and said the likely consumer take-out of the advertisement was that it was a humorous depiction of a hyperbolic scenario which was not intended to be taken literally.

The complaint was ruled not upheld.