NewsLine Column: Hooray For The ASA

As the Communications Bill brings the self-regulation of broadcast advertising a step closer, James Papworth, ad marketing manager at IPC Prospector, examines the role that the Advertising Standards Authority plays in upholding the integrity of non-broadcast marketing.

For many years, on and off, I’ve fancied a job at the Advertising Standards Authority. I’d heard plenty about it and although I wasn’t 100% sure what it did, I figured: “How hard can that job be”?

You see, broadcast monitoring, and the ticking-off of miscreants, I could understand. Loud, brash, in-your-face commercials interrupting the genteel enjoyment of Heartbeat need to be kept in line. And indeed, I’d been collared by the ITC myself – “an honest oversight, me’lud” – both times.

But print! Waiting around for the odd letter from some do-gooding Guardianista who had accidentally picked up a copy of Loaded and taken ‘shocked’, ‘disappointed’, ‘what is the world coming too’ offence at all those adverts using beer/music/cars and clothing to sell sex. That seemed like a chairs-spinning at 5.30pm job to me.

Then the other day, out of the blue, a direct mail came from the Committee of Advertising Practice telling me of the latest revisions to its Code of Advertising (for non-broadcast, direct mail and sales promotion) and mentioning the ASA. It sparked my interest, worthy of a closer look.

A quick search of the trade press archive revealed that the ASA has been very busy lately, and I think the whole of advertising should be grateful.

Non-broadcast advertising is a self-regulatory industry. CAP writes the rules of engagement to which practitioners of advertising, through respective trade bodies, agree, in gentlemanly spirit, to adhere. The ASA interprets and enforces of those rules.

The CAP code was set up to keep non-broadcast marketing credible, at least in the minds of consumers and to prevent marketers from bringing the industry into disrepute. This is an important point for all the advertising industry.

Great store is placed in the trust and belief that readers display toward editorial content. A trust and belief which does extend to advertising and other commercial partnerships. To maintain that trust, editorial and advertising standards have to be maintained. Editors do the former, but no single media owner, whatever sector they are in, has the resource or knowledge base to perform the latter, and that’s where the ASA comes in.

If advertising/marketing loses its credibility, if its not true, consumers will stop believing in it – many are cynical as it is. If they don’t believe it, it won’t influence them. If it doesn’t influence them, then why would anyone do it?

While we might assume that smaller advertisers, perhaps doing copy in-house, could innocently infringe the rules, the ASA is frequently called upon to rap the knuckles of big boys too.

The Mayor of London for example. Just two days after the introduction of the congestion charge Ken was asked by the ASA to remove posters claiming that ‘all the cash’ raised would go towards improving local transport. It may be semantics but a few members of the public pointed out that, as with all Government schemes, a large proportion would be used up in admin. And the ASA agreed.

In the spirit of self-regulation, it is often competitors, keeping an eye on each other, who call in the ASA. For example, supermarkets and DIY stores increasingly use price comparisons to gain a bit of competitive edge. Useful for customers but damn irritating if the claims turn out to be ‘over zealous’.

None of us like to be misled over money and the ASA is cracking down on companies that mislead the public by claiming to offer better savings than they really do. Its this maintenance of law and order in the price arena where the ASA really earns its spurs. After all, over zealous ad campaigning reflects badly on all advertising. In an industry where stereotyping consumer behaviour is a day-to-day activity, we all get tarred with the same brush.

Retail prices, facts and figures are easy enough to prove or disprove. The more nebulous, but also glamourous, and fun, end of the business are questions of taste and decency.

Rulings often depend, not so much on what the marketing is, but where it takes place. It’s reasonable for those do-gooder Guardianistas to expect to find risqué adverts in Loaded. The whole thing’s risqué.

The famous Opium/Sohie Dahl advert for example was fine when it ran in magazines, and was only censured after being posted up for mass market consumption – where it attracted a record 984 complaints.

Of course, not all complaints are upheld and the ASA does have a sense of humour.

This ad for example, despite 219 complaints (from users of high factor sun cream), was ruled to be sufficiently light-hearted as to be unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Statistics from the ASA show that although the total number of complaints received over the last few years has remained at around 12,000, the number not investigated – no case to answer, complaint withdrawn, outside remit or simply, not justified – has increased from 59% in 1999 to 71% in 2001. The total number of complaints upheld in 2001 was 1,670 vs 2,439 in 2000.

Perhaps this is a sign that ASA’s naming and shaming of rule breakers and the well promoted changes to the CAP Code are taking effect. Marketing ought to be humorous and risqué, its part of the attraction the job. From a consumer’s point of view, it also ought to be credible, truthful and thus, believable. In case we accidentally miss that, the ASA is there, busily, reminding us. Would I still like to work there? … my boss reads this column too!

If you would like to respond or make further comment on this or any other NewsLine article, please email [email protected]

Subscribers can access previous articles by NewsLine columnists in the Columnist Archive – click button on left.