You can sign up to our LinkedIn newsletter here.

Are you one of those who loves reruns of classic crime dramas? If so, you probably have direct experience of ageist advertising. Regulators are noticing, but are they doing anything?

As I write this, in June 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is proudly publicising research it commissioned from Strats to examine ageism in broadcast advertising.

This research, conducted between November 2024 and January 2025, is relatively current. It focused on how older people are depicted in advertisements and the public’s response to these portrayals.

It’s important to note that the advertising code includes specific rules regarding harm and offence. The most relevant rule in this context is that advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social, or cultural standards—particularly avoiding offence on the grounds of age.

So, it’s clear that offending on the grounds of age is not acceptable.

Furthermore, there are additional clauses stating that advertisements must not prejudice respect for human dignity. They must also avoid including gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm or serious or widespread offence.

This makes it crystal clear that how older people are treated in advertising is well within the ASA’s remit. The ASA is the co-regulator with Ofcom, the statutory regulator appointed by the government, which lends the ASA a specific statutory authority.

Given the results of this research, it’s disappointing that the ASA has not taken any action.

Let’s examine what the research revealed.

The study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods, examining advertisements across various media platforms, including TV, radio, digital platforms, posters, and print media. The findings revealed several problematic elements—demonstrating that adverts are capable of causing widespread offence and, in some cases, undermining human dignity.

For this research, “older people” were defined as those aged 55 and over. Most individuals in this age group reported feeling comfortable in their skin—over 70%, according to the quantitative data. A similar number expressed the sentiment that “age is just a number.”

When shown advertisements portraying older people as frail, inactive, or isolated, participants felt that such portrayals were more accurate of their grandparents than of themselves. Many felt that ageing is an opportunity to reject conformity and embrace individuality. Therefore, one-dimensional and outdated stereotypes of ageing were perceived as especially inaccurate and offensive.

So why did this offend?

Two major issues were identified:  targeting and omission.

Participants were concerned that older individuals would be inundated with targeted ads for end-of-life products, such as funerals and cremation services. They were equally concerned about the omission of older people from advertisements for general consumer products.

Where was this offence being felt?

Both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the research highlighted that advertising has a significant impact on societal perceptions of older people. Nearly 60% of adults believe that advertising has a moderate or high influence on how society views older people.

Certain depictions stood out as especially problematic. These included portrayals of older individuals as socially excluded, frail, physically inactive, or in severe financial hardship. For older women, the issues were either being shown as frumpy and unfashionable or excessively airbrushed to appear youthful.

A higher proportion of UK adults agreed that older people are negatively stereotyped in advertising—more so than women, men, or ethnic minorities. Notably, the older the respondents, the more likely they were to agree with this statement, with the proportion rising to nearly 50% among those aged 65 and above.

Returning to the core issues of harm and offence, at least a quarter of respondents found various depictions of older people potentially offensive. In many instances, this rose to nearly half of the total.

When asked about depictions that caused harm, 32% of respondents agreed that portraying older people as having no purpose in life was harmful. Other harmful portrayals included:

• Showing older people as consistently poor (48%)
• Depicting them as frail or physically weak (47%)
• Suggesting they don’t understand or can’t use technology (47%)
• Being dismissive of older people (46%)
• Showing them as forgetful (46%)

These views were consistent across the UK adult population. Among those over 50, the percentages were slightly higher, but not significantly so.

The depictions with the highest potential to cause harm included:

Showing older people as having no purpose in life (32%)

• Depicting isolation or loneliness (27%)
• Portraying them as powerless (22%)
• Being dismissive (22%)
• Pitting them against youth (22%)

There is clear evidence that many adverts cause both harm and offence to a significant portion of the population.

Despite this, the ASA’s press release accompanying the report, published on June 19, 2025, stated:

“While we’re not currently proposing any new rules, we’re hoping that by sharing this research, advertisers will understand how some portrayals of older people are landing with the public today and where there may be unintended consequences.”

To me, this feels like a “do nothing” response.

The specific advertisements identified in the research as harmful and offensive, in my view, should have been addressed by the ASA.

While I welcome the fact that the ASA is researching the depiction of older people in advertising, their response to the issue feels wholly inadequate.

Charles McLachlan is the founder of FuturePerfect and on a mission to transform the future of work and business. The Portfolio Executive programme is a new initiative to help executives build a sustainable and impactful second-half-career. Creating an alternative future takes imagination, design, organisation and many other thinking skills. Charles is happy to lend them to you.