According to the BBC, the extension of the Advertising Standards Agency’s remit to include social media now means that the 2000+ complaints it receives each year about misleading adverts can be investigated further rather than left to sit in an uncomfortable online loophole. Many other commentators have shared their opinions on what this means for brands looking to pro-actively promote products across their social spaces, but perhaps of more interest is what this means for brands who quietly acquiesce in consumer behaviour and discussion that is – in itself – based on misleading information.
Here at Tempero Towers, we look after a plethora of social-networking profiles, forums and other communities on behalf of some of Europe’s largest and best-known brands. Often, we’re tasked with acting as their voice across social, helping them engage with fans and influencers to discuss new products, glean feedback and interact with those who care passionately about the work that they are doing. But equally we are often asked by brands to achieve something that is – at times – virtually unattainable: to build awareness around a facet of their brand personality that only they themselves can see. Synthesio calls it the case of : now, the ASA might call it something else.
According to the guidelines – which took effect today – user-generated content will remain outside of the ASA remit unless a company ‘adopts’ them in some way. Whilst at this stage it is unclear as to what this means in practice (a facebook ‘like’, anyone?), it’s an interesting test case waiting to happen. If you encourage fans to create content promoting a product benefit that doesn’t exist, is this a breach of the ASA regulations? Equally, if you optimise your social assets on keywords around a false brand attribute, where does that business stand in the face of the new guidelines? Does the ‘miracle cure’ beauty product enjoy unprotected status if it lets its fans promote its pseudo-science on its behalf? It would seem in the first instance that simple acquiescence lets the brand escape regulation – but it would be interesting to see whether a pro-active moderation policy on content is enough for the ASA – even if that content is post-moderated rather than pre-moderated – to equate ‘acquiescence’ with ‘adoption’ in branded communities. Could over-moderation be a danger in this instance?
We’ll be over the coming months but for now we’re sure that there’s a fascinating debate to be had around many of the grey areas in the ASA’s new remit. If you’ve got any thoughts you wish to share, please do so in the comments field below.
[image: ]
Tempero on Google+
