Posted on April 12, 2011 by Kirsty Ward

Is The Beauty Industry Set For A Makeover?

Last year, Rimmel London was criticised for its “1-2-3 Looks Mascara” television and magazine ads when the Advertising Standards Authority deemed in its adjudication that the use of lash inserts on model Georgia Jagger exaggerated the effect achievable from the use of the product alone and the disclaimer “Shot with last inserts” was insufficiently clear in providing information.

In response to similar complaints about use of eyelash inserts, hair extensions and airbrushing in cosmetic advertising the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice have published new guidance designed to educate advertisers in the cosmetics sector and prevent misleading and exaggerated claims about the effect a product is capable of achieving.

The CAP Help Note, "The Use Of Production Techniques in Cosmetics Advertising", draws a distinction between the use of obvious exaggeration that is not likely to be taken literally, the effect actually achievable by the product, and the exaggeration which consumers interpret as begin indicative of a product’s capabilities. Consequently, forthcoming ads for mascara may use eyelash inserts to fill in natural gaps in the lash line but not to create a lengthening or volumising effect beyond what can be achieved by the mascara on natural lashes.

Post-production airbrushing will also be scruintised to avoid misleading consumers on the apparent performance of the product, and advertisers may no longer be able to remove or reduce the appearance of lines and wrinkles, add highlights and shine or remove ‘fly-away’ hair. The Help Note further reiterates the importance of advertisers continuing to document and retain appropriate evidence to demonstrate any research, styling and re-touching, as required under the Codes, and also clarifies that the use of qualifications and disclaimers will not excuse otherwise disallowed activities. Disclaimers and qualifying statements should only be used for adding clarity and must be legible and appropriately placed. This comes at a time when the cosmetic industry is possibly already turning a marketing corner. In the US last month, French cosmetics brand Make Up For Ever launched the world’s first unretouched make-up ad campaign and in the UK both Maybelline’s and Maxfactor’s TV ads have taken a deliberate move towards a more natural setting. As our industry becomes more and more transparent, it remains to be seen whether this new guidance will initiate a decline in highly stylised ad campaigns in favour for the natural look. Please contact a member of the ReACTS team for further information and assistance with your advertising.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on March 1, 2011 by Huw Morris

Is the ASA Getting in Your Personal Space?

The wait is finally over... Hot on the heels of yesterday's launch of product placement onto UK television, today marks another dawn of a new age in UK advertising. As of today, Tuesday 1st March 2011, the regulatory remit of the ASA is extended to cover online non-paid for space and pages under the control of advertisers. This means that the CAP Code for non-broadcast advertising, which previously only applied, in an online context, to advertising in paid-for space, such as pop-ups and banner ads, will now regulate promotional activities on companies' own websites and on sites such as a brand's official Facebook page, Twitter feed or YouTube channel.

It remains to be seen how the ASA will manage, if at all, to police its new regime, considering the enormity of this task and the limited funding available. But the controversial new sanctions it has the power to impose on infringing advertisers should not be sniffed at.  

Our own Marina Palomba shares her thoughts on this groundbreaking new development in MediaWeek today.

Please see our Ad Guide for further information about how this will affect our industry, or contact a member of the ReACTS team.

Tags: , , , ,
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 2, 2010 by Christopher Hackford

Video on Demand Advertising: new rules and regulator

Ofcom has today designated that, from 1 September 2010, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) will be the appropriate regulator for advertising on video on demand (VOD) services notified to the Association for Television on Demand (ATVOD), thus maintaining the ASA as the one stop shop for advertising regulation and enforcement in the UK.

Simultaneously, CAP has issued a new Appendix to the CAP Code (the Code), incorporating new rules into the Code, which will take effect from the same date. This change does not introduce new rules for VOD advertising: it is merely necessary to ensure that the Code reflects specific legislative rules that apply to VOD services, which are not already covered in the Code, thereby enabling the ASA to regulate this area.

In addition to the new Appendix, advertising on VOD services must continue to comply with all the rules and provisions of the Code. In effect, therefore, for advertisers little has changed, except that the regulatory enforcer is now the ASA, with Ofcom merely acting as a backstop power. VOD providers should remember, however, that, under the Communications Act 2003 (the Act), they are primarily responsible for complying with the rules contained in the Act, which are now set out in the Appendix.

In addition to the usual remit of sanctions for non-compliance, the ASA also has the power now to refer any matter to Ofcom with a view to Ofcom considering whether the media service provider has contravened the requirements of the Act.

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on June 6, 2010 by Marina Palomba

Handbags at Dawn? Misleading Advertisements in the Press

45% of complaints to the ASA, The Advertising Standards Authority, are about misleading claims.  One latest advertiser to fall foul of the rules, is Louis Vuitton. The ASA upheld complaints that two press ads were misleading. One featured a photograph of a woman stitching the handle of a handbag with the words " A needle, linen thread, beeswax and infinite patience protect each overstitch from humidity and the passage of time. One could say that a Louis Vuitton bag is a collection of details. But with so much attention lavished on every one, should we only call them details?"  

Three complainants complained  the ads misleadingly implied that Louis Vuitton products were made by hand when they are not. The ASA upheld the complaints because there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the implied claims that they were.

Louis Vuitton is one of many advertisers who fail to have prepared  the necessary evidence to prove any implied or explicit claims in advertising.  Why does this matter? Because an adverse ASA adjudication that upholds complaints for misleading can be hugely damaging to brand reputation, and often for fairly small infringements of the advertising codes.

The UK's advertising codes for broadcast and non broadcast advertising are unambiguous:

"Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation. Relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP.  The adequacy of evidence will be judged on whether it supports both the detailed claims and the overall impression created by the marketing communication. " (Clause 3.1 CAP Code)

Often marketers simply get carried away with belief in the brilliance of their products and creatively simplified slogans simply sound better. There is however a genuine risk that exaggerated statements can lead to damaging adverse publicity and with the imminent extension of regulation to promotional messages on the Internet advertisers must think carefully about claims in marketing communications of all types. Other marketers do not take an ASA letter demanding substantiation seriously. This is a mistake as many have discovered. A quiet week in the news means the press will focus on any major brand caught out breaching the Codes. John Reynolds in Campaign, publicises one of many such advertisers in his article about British Gas' efficiency claims. Media Guardian's Mark Sweney will swoop on any important transgressor. Only recently he reported the ASA's decision to ban Eurotunnel email promotion which claimed its service took vehicles to France by train in just 35 minutes and ran "whatever the weather". 

Its not just about brand damage either. Having a press ad or TV commercial banned can mean a massive waste of money. So don't waste a good campaign, an expensive TV commercial or lose pre purchased media space. Know your regulations and have robust evidence to substantiate your claims.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,