In March 2024, JD Sports launched an ad campaign featuring their range of Nike Air Max clothing and footwear. The campaign included various promotional materials across Facebook and physical posters, showcasing motorcycle and quad bike riders performing stunts in an urban setting while wearing Nike Air Max products.

The Ads

Facebook Page Cover Photo: Posted on 4 March 2024, this cover photo featured three images in a row. The first image showed three stationary motorcycle riders in Nike Air Max clothing. The second depicted a rider performing a wheelie, and the third was a close-up of a Nike Air Max shoe on a motorcycle peg.

Facebook Reel: Also posted on 4 March 2024, this reel included shots of motorcycle and quad bike riders performing stunts in an urban environment. The ad rapidly cut between action shots and close-ups of the Nike Air Max clothing and shoes. Superimposed text warned, “STUNTS PERFORMED BY PROFESSIONALS - DO NOT TRY AT HOME”.

Paid Facebook Ad: Seen on 9 March 2024, this ad showed a close-up of a Nike Air Max trainer on a motorcycle peg.

Poster: Seen on 12 March 2024, this poster featured images of riders performing wheelies while wearing Nike Air Max clothing and shoes.

The Complaints

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 60 complaints, including from the British Motorcyclists Federation. The complaints were primarily concerned with two issues:

1. Irresponsible Road Usage: Complainants argued that several of the ads depicted illegal and irresponsible road usage.
2. Inappropriate Attire: Complainants also challenged the depiction of riders wearing trainers and athletic wear instead of protective gear.

JD Sports’ Response

JD Sports defended their campaign, stating that the motorbikes were incidental to the ads, which focused on the clothing and footwear. They explained that the imagery was captured in a controlled environment, either within a leased warehouse or on a closed road. They emphasised that a health and safety assessment was conducted, and the motorcycles were road legal, despite not featuring number plates in the ads.

Road Usage: JD Sports argued that the ads did not depict activities breaking the Highway Code and that consumers would understand the images were staged for advertising purposes. They believed the superimposed warning text in ad (b) would discourage viewers from copying the stunts.

Protective Gear: JD Sports stated that the advertised products were not marketed as personal protective equipment. They noted that, beyond helmets, there is no legal obligation for motorcyclists to wear additional protective gear.

ASA’s Assessment

The ASA upheld the complaints, stating that marketing communications must not condone or encourage unsafe practices. 

The CAP Code specifies that marketing communications must not condone or encourage unsafe or irresponsible driving. While the ASA recognised that the road scenes were filmed on closed public roads, they believed viewers would not be able to distinguish these from open public roads. Additionally, the ASA noted that motorcycles on open public roads are required to display a number plate, which was not evident in the ads. Further, Department for Transport (DfT) guidance stated that most quad bikes could not be used on public roads because they did not meet road safety standards. 

However, when it comes to protective equipment, the ASA agreed with the advertiser and did not uphold the part of the complaint dealing with the fact they were wearing no protective clothing beyond a helmet. 

In the UK, the only legally required protective equipment for operating a motorcycle is a helmet, with an exemption for Sikh riders wearing a turban. The Department for Transport (DfT) recommends using specialized motorcycle gear. For quad bikes, wearing a protective helmet is mandatory in Northern Ireland but not elsewhere in the UK, although the Highway Code advises it, the Highway Code does not mandate additional protective equipment for motorcycles or quad bikes. The riders in the ads all wore helmets, thus meeting the legal requirements for clothing and footwear. Therefore, the ads were not considered irresponsible for featuring riders without additional protective gear.

This campaign highlights the fine line advertisers must tread between creating engaging content and ensuring it adheres to safety and ethical standards, and it's a reminder that a disclaimer isn't a complete ‘get out of jail free card’ in these circumstances where the creative reflects unsafe behaviour.  Some might argue it shows the ASA is increasingly taking an interventionist approach more akin to the French regulators when it comes to balancing creative impact versus consumer safety.