“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 1st 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.
Leave a comment
No comments yet.
joesayer 
Leave a comment