The FT tried something new today. We took to Twitter to answer questions about one of the day’s bigger news stories in the digital-media world: that the UK’s advertising regulator, the ASA, is extending its rules on accuracy and decency into corporate websites, social networks, blogs and mobile apps.
Seeing as many people already discuss the day’s news on Twitter, we thought it would be an interesting experiment to focus the conversation a little, get the views of people affected by the ASA’s new regime and add some personal perspectives to the coverage in today’s paper.
We tried to examine how successful this attempt to police the web will be; whether it’s realistic for UK-based regulator to reach into such an international medium; how it might affect freedom of speech or the playful nature of social networks, and if you or your company are going to have to scramble to make big changes as a result.
Given the ASA story is partly about Twitter, it seemed an ideal place to start our first #FTchat, which could be tracked on the site using that hashtag.
A few of the contributions after the jump…
LauraOliver started by asking one of the big questions:
how on earth will the ASA regulate such a large/international patch?
The ASA will only be looking at marketing targeted at UK consumers, for instance quoting prices in sterling. Nonetheless, CyberDoyle was pretty down on the whole idea:
Just think fools go where angels fear to tread. They can’t even control TV ads, control t’internet? Big orgs will have lawyers to defend them. Smaller scammers are too cute to be caught. I don’t think anyone can regulate it. SMEs have enough on their plates staying in business. ASA will only add to their burdens.
john_cant agreed that the rules could be “disproportionate” for smaller firms who use the web because they can’t afford to buy TV ads.
But kcorrick noted that the some of ASA’s powers are already covered under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
The problems of user generated-content have always been there from a libel, trademark etc point of view. ASA adds another layer.
How far companies are responsible for their customers’ comments or videos seems to be a particularly contentious area, with some people interpreting the rules quite narrowly and others seeing trouble ahead.
R_C asked:
Is having a [Facebook] page an invitation in itself? Will irony be taken into account? I guess the proof of the pudding is going to be in the precedents set in early judgements
RobinGrant was more confident that most user-generated content wouldn’t be captured under the rules:
Only the advertiser’s marketing communication on a social networking page will come within the extended remit. It’s only if the advertiser goes on to use the UGC in marketing. A fan’s comment on a FB page wouldn’t count.
But FISG noted the fine line between infringement and innovation, adding:
Social media is endless – are they up to speed on its changing nature and will the ASA be able to keep up with the evolution?
Panmure Gordon tech analyst GeorgeO said that even if the rules left marketing departments scrambling, that created opportunities for software firms such as Autonomy or Alterian who sell tools for monitoring and understanding online chatter.
Why hire armies – use software to ‘understand’/ profile compliant ads? Autonomy has an established track record in being buzzward perfect (and has a treasure chest).
In the meantime, nickstringer recommended playing it safe
Business should treat all marketing communications/conversations with consumers as in remit to uphold integrity of digital marketing.
For those seeking further clarity, the full codes are on the BCAP website and the IAB has also put up a PDF of frequently asked questions. The rules take effect in the UK on March 1 2011.
