Posted on September 1, 2010 by Marina Palomba

Regulation Spreads to Advertisements on Corporate Websites and Social Networking Sites

The Advertising Standards Authority, ASA, announced on the 1st September 2010 an extension of its regulatory remit, from March 2011, which will give the Regulator jurisdiction over all marketing communications on the Internet including those on corporate websites and social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook, as well as over advergames and user generated content.

 

This controversial move has been introduced without any public consultation, and includes new serious sanctions for advertisers. Exemptions to the new regulation include "heritage advertising", 'investor relations', and marketing communications promoting "causes and ideas". Nearly all other marketing promotions on-line will need to comply with the CAP Code. Some areas of concern include how the ASA will deal with the fine line between editorial and promotional material; how the extended remit will be adequately funded; how sanctions can be effectively enforced against companies with sites based overseas or indeed against those thousands of smaller on line advertisers who are blissfully unaware and ignorant of the CAP Code and whose advertising can change in seconds in this fast paced media environment.

 

All this comes into effect on the 1st March 2011, which does not give businesses long to review their on line promotions and marketing plans. The changes to the CAP Code ironically comes literally days after printed versions of the revised CAP and BCAP Codes were sent out to purchasers, and only a few months after a public consultation, which excluded these latest provisions.

Some on-line promotions are more risque than in other media. This is justified since much on-line material on corporate websites and social media networks is “pulled” by the consumer and not “pushed”. These new provisions do not indicate how the ASA will adjudicate marketing material that is aimed at adult markets. Pulled materials ought to be treated differently to those that are pushed at consumers such as pop ups and banners. This is a recognised practice in the off-line environment where advertisements in adult magazines are treated differently to those on a poster or press ad. Otherwise there is a serious danger of a dumbing down of creativity and a less enjoyable experience for consumers.

 

Many other problems are yet to be determined. For example can a fast food company produce a children’s advergame and comply with the CAP Code given the social responsibility clauses and the restrictions on food advertising?

 

Many advertisers may be surprised to learn they will pay a levy on sponsored search to fund this new extended remit. Google has provided some initial funding to cover the first year or two of the new system but the 0.1% levy on advertising spend by ASBOF (Advertising Standards Board of Finance) collected by advertising agencies, (albeit that they represent only a fraction of spend in this sector) from their client advertisers, is intended to cover the additional cost of the extended system.

 

The risk to the ASA is that it may be unable to cope with the number of complaints and the funds available may be inadequate in the long term to deal with this vast medium where reputable advertisers will comply, as they largely do already for reputational reasons alone, and where smaller traders and many rogue traders carry on as they do now.

 

For further advice on what this means for your business please see our Ad Guide.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on August 4, 2010 by Marina Palomba

Abortion Services Advertisement Cleared by the ASA

The first television commercial for post conception advice by Maris Stopes led to the Advertising Standards Authority receiving almost 5,000 complaints, fueled by attacks from anti-abortion groups. Apparently the ASA also received a petition against the advertisement from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

Despite the fierce objections however the ASA did not uphold the complaints, indeed it may well be argued that no other outcome was feasible since the advertisement did not breach any of the Code rules, as we stated in our blog of 24 May 2010 . The ASA concluded that the advertisement would not cause widespread offence and was not harmful in that it would not encourage promiscuity or overly appeal to young people.

It is interesting nevertheless to consider the grounds that were used by complainants to object to the advertisement.  Arguments against the commercials were wide ranging and included: that the commercial was a political message; the ad promoted abortion; offended the religious beliefs of some viewers; trivialised the decision to choose abortion; did not take into account the views of the father; was sexist in that it portrayed pregnancy as a woman's responsibility; and that it would encourage promiscuity among young people and that it equated decisions about the life of an unborn child with decisions about consumer goods.

None of these views were accepted and the ASA adjudication states:

We considered that it was clear that the ad was promoting the Advice Line as a source of information for ..women, and noted that it did not advocate one option over another.

Unsurprisingly anti-abortion groups are upset at the decision, with the ProLife Alliance claiming the ASA has ignored clear breaches of the Code.  The commercials were though carefully and sensitively produced and there is little doubt the advertisements are compliant with the BCAP Code.  As I commented in May this year in Campaign Magazine, given this is a highly sensitive area, there will always be those who object to the right to advertise such services.   

 

Tags: , , , , ,