Clamping Down On Brands (new online advertising regulations)

 “Since 2008, the ASA said it has received more than 4,500 complaints about online marketing which did not fall under its remit until now”. (Halliday J, 2011)

 As you will probably already have some degree of knowledge if you have any interest in the advertising industry you will probably know that ASA stands for the Advertising Standards Authority. They are the UK’s regulators of ads and have the authority to pull any ad from viewing if they feel that it fails to meet the criteria presented in the code of practice. Being advertisers the ASA can be your enemy, restricting what ideas can actually be allowed making a creative’s job a lot harder.

 March 1^st of this year was the day that the ASA now gained the power to regulate “marketing communications on companies’ own websites and in other third party space under their control, such as Facebook and Twitter, and will now have to adhere to the non-broadcast advertising rules as set out in the CAP Code”. (ASA, 2011) This suggests that now brands will even have to be careful when considering advertising in the digital world. Before they could put out virtually anything they wanted. This  included adverts which were previously banned from television for added recognition such as Beyonce’s banned perfume commercial which could previously uploaded to sites such as YouTube and achieve comments from the general public and in turn generate more brand awareness.

 The reason for this huge decision taking place is that there have been thousands of complaints in the past few years concerning the misleading of words on websites and in particular social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The ASA will now have the power to extend the advertising code to include online advertising must not “harm, mislead or offended people” (BBC, 2011)

However, there has been a little confusion as of late about the effectiveness of this regulation procedure as mention by Vincent-Wayne Mitchell (professor of consumer marketing) who argues that “I could have an advert up on the internet for a week or for an hour, cause widespread confusion, get sales from that, and then withdraw it. The only punishment that the ASA has is withdrawal, but I can have that as part of my own marketing strategy”. This to my is a fair point in which advertisers can play to their advantage where consumers need to see a particular ad before time runs out creating  an accelerated ‘Buzz’ towards a particular product.

In order to deal with this the ASA have decided to create a ‘name and shame policy’ where persistent offenders could have material removed from search engines as well as warning the public of the companies that to not abide to the code.(BBC, 2010) Negative exposure is a brands worst nightmare when considering the success of their company suggesting that this will be an effective tactic.

Before, brands could comfortably work outside just their own brand website by communicating with their fans though social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. Celebrity endorsements are a great example of this where by celebrities such as Kim Kardasian, Mike Tyson and 50 Cent are paid to tweet on behalf of companies as followers will then feel that these are the products/services in which they should be buying into. This to me is unethical in the online world in terms of social media due to celebrities advertising products that they don’t necessarily believe in, taking advantage of followers who look up to them as role models, emulating their every move. When considering this the ASA’s idea to regulate the online world is a positive one.

As mentioned in my previous blogs social media is a great way for added brand recognition, creating strong relationships with consumers though social networks thus gaining a high degree of brand loyalty. However, brands are now going to have to be more carful and abide to the code of practice for online advertising if they what it to continue to be an effective tool. One step out of line and the ASA has the power to give them the negative brand recognition that every company constantly tries its best to stay away from.

References

BBC. (2011). Advertising watchdog to monitor website words. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12597934. Last accessed 22 March 2011.

Joey, J. (2011). Twitter and Facebook Users Complain about Online Marketing. Available: http://www.thatagency.com/design-studio-blog/2011/04/twitter-and-facebook-users-complain-about-online-marketing/. Last accessed 20 March 2011.

Hilliday, J. (2011). Twitter and Facebook under scrutiny as ASA polices online marketing. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/twitter-facebook-online-marketing-asa. Last accessed 20 March 2011.

SSM Student. (2011). Is Paying Celebrities to Tweet Ethical? . Available: http://prosintraining.com/ssm/2011/04/is-paying-celebrities-to-tweet-ethical/. Last accessed 20 March 2011.

One BIG happy family (Public Sphere)

Originally, the ‘Public Sphere’ was formulated by Habermas (1962) during the 18^th century as a means of connecting the public with democracy, giving a voice to those who were before isolated from any opinion sharing.  Habermas describes it as “The coming together of people and the discussion of ideas, often related to governance and demographic ideals.” Poor, N (2005). This firstly occurred as a form of socialising and topic conversation in public meetings, yet as commercialisation grew from the press, so did its corruption through advertising and the entertainment industry. Poor N (2005).

 Today, with technology advances constantly evolving arguments have been created surrounding the Public Sphere being linked to the internet in areas such as the blogging entries that you are reading now. However, many scholars have discussed its legitimacy regarding the connection of people from all around world.

 Habermas (1962) states originally that for a public sphere to exist it must be comprised with 3 basic elements which include:

1. Needs to be formed through discussion
2. New space of discussion which before has been excluded
3. Considered on the basis of its quality and not on the basis of the power of the speaker

 The internet accounts for all of these areas with scholars suggesting that the internet provides certain additions to Habermas work. Banker claims that “The Web content provides adequate visibility within smaller communities, and while also allowing quality content to filter up to a broad audience”. This summarises the argument that the internet consists of multiple mini publics rather that one overall one yet can still generate large amount of public togetherness.

 Arguments against the Public Sphere theory are acknowledged by Papacharissi (2002) who claims that literacy and the public’s access are likely to be unequal which links to certain audience fragmentation. Another issue is that online public spheres have the potential to face problems from corruption by commercialisation. Poor N, (2005)

 A recent example of this relates to social media and the public sphere theory. Through the social network Facebook, members created a group in which people were able to be a part of which would eventfully take over and control the success of the music industry for the end of that year.  In the UK X-Factor is a million pound television programme in which millions are pumped into the programme in order to create a buzz and inevitably result in the Television companies and executives such a Simon Cowell earning a huge profit. Rebellion took place in 2010 as a group was set up which suggested to vote for music artists ‘Rage against the Machine’ to win the Christmas number one in an attempt to destroy the marketing efforts which have been successful for the last 4 years. This is an example of a success story which undermines efforts of theories such as the political economy.

 From an advertising point of view the theory of the public sphere can be utilised to create a certain ‘buzz’ from consumers yet can also have a negative effect as discussed where consumers  have the power to snatch and potential success this from companies/organisations. I feel as though when associating public spheres which the internet they are overall fragmented obviously not allowing everyone to be a part of all spheres. However, if you are a consumer interested in a certain topic areas then you may be likely to go out of your way to be a part of a public sphere evolving the growth of the topic area.

 References

 Hindman, M. (2008). What is the Online Public Sphere Good For?. The Hyperlinked Society. 1 (1), 9.

 Streete, L., 20^th December 2009How Social Media controlled the music industry in the UK..!. 15^th March 2011. Avaliable from: http://www.leonstreete.com/Blog/How-Social-Media-controlled-the-music-industry-in-the-UK.html?print=1&tmpl=component.

 Poor, N., 2005. Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 4