Regulations governing how social media influencers advertise products online are confusing and unclear, with the UK public overwhelmingly believing the system should be more transparent, new research reveals.

The comprehensive survey into influencer marketing was carried out on behalf of Prizeology, a prize promotions agency specialising in promotional regulation and compliance. The survey looked at how the public perceive rules and regulations around influencer marketing.

The research, carried out on 2,015 members of the general public, looked at influencer marketing on social media platforms covering Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Pinterest. It overwhelmingly revealed a worrying lack of knowledge around the rules governing advertising by influencers.

A huge majority – 71% of people – wrongly believe that there are no regulations surrounding influencer marketing. Nearly two-thirds (61%) believe that influencers do not have to state that they have been paid to talk about a product – which is incorrect, because under consumer protection legislation, influencers must state if they are being paid to promote a brand’s products. The CAP Code, the code of conduct which is part of the UK’s self-regulatory system covering advertising and marketing in the UK, reflects and reinforces the legal position, and a number of complaints against brands have been upheld by industry regulator the Advertising Standards Authority for insufficient clarity in publicising commercial relationships with bloggers, vloggers and other social media influencers.

Half (49%) of the UK public were unaware of the relevant language or tags like #ad which are supposed to appear on paid-for posts to show that paid-for product promotion is involved; 33% of these were young people aged between 18-24, which suggests consumer confusion is not restricted to the older age brackets.

The research also clearly showed that the general public believes that they should be informed if people are being paid to promote products: 88% of the survey sample agreed with this statement, with 60% agreeing that their perception of a brand is improved when they are transparent about product promotion.

Sarah Burns, Managing Director of Prizeology and an expert on compliance and regulation in the promotional marketing sector, says: “The results are extremely interesting and overwhelmingly show a shocking lack of knowledge and confusion amongst all age groups – including teenagers – about the way that brands use social media influencers to advertise their products.”

Well over two-thirds (71%) of those questioned felt that more should be done to force disclosure.

Brands are also in danger of having their reputations damaged by lack of transparency, with 44% of those surveyed saying they felt that influencer marketing is damaging and 66% of people agreeing that their perception of a brand improved when they were transparent about product placement. Burns comments: “This should be a wake-up call to brands to make sure that they are acting within the rules when working with influencers. The public do not want to be duped and brands could suffer as a result.”

She concludes: “It is clear that this is an area of promotion that is growing rapidly, and the regulations need to be enforced more rigorously to keep pace with its growth. Now is the time to take action. I know the Advertising Standards Authority has committed to comprehensive education and enforcement this year, and our research shows that this would be welcomed by consumers.”

The survey of 2,015 people, representative of the UK by age, gender and region, was conducted by Vitreous World Ltd for Prizeology between January 30th and February 2^nd 2018. A white paper and full breakdown of the survey and results can be downloaded from the Prizeology website.

Prizeology is a prize promotions agency working with brands to engage customers. It specialises in compliance and best practice and helps brands and businesses run prize promotions which stick to the rules and regulations.

The post UK public wants rules on social influencers tightened up appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

KFC’s ‘Dancing Chicken’ ad – featuring a chicken dancing to rap music — was the ad which generated the most consumer complaints in 2017, according to the Advertising Standards Authority’s Top 10 ranking of the year’s most complained about ads.

The KFC commercial triggered 755 complaints, mainly on the grounds that it was disrespectful to chickens and distressing for vegetarians, vegans and children, since it depicted a chicken who was heading for slaughter. The ASA ruled it was unlikely that the ad would cause distress or serious or widespread offence, as there were in fact no explicit references to animal slaughter.

In total, the ASA received 29,997 complaints during 2017. All the ads on 2017’s Top 10 list had one common thread – they were all challenged on the grounds of offence. The ASA points out that while the reason why most ads get complained about is that they are misleading – the issue in 73% of cases in 2017 — but misleading cases are much less likely to attract multiple complaints.

ASA Chief Executive Guy Parker says: “Tackling misleading ads continues to be the bread and butter of our work, but 2017 again showed that it is ads that have the potential to offend that attract the highest numbers of complaints. But multiple complaints don’t necessarily mean that an ad has fallen on the wrong side of the line: we look carefully at the audience, the context and prevailing societal standards informed by public research before we decide.”

The decision as to whether an ad is likely to cause offence is made by the 12 members of the ASA Council, following detailed investigation by ASA staff. The Council acts as a jury to decide whether to uphold complaints against ads on the grounds of causing ‘serious or widespread offence’. When making that judgement, the ASA considers several factors: the audience likely to see the ad, the context in which the ad appears, and prevailing societal standards. The ASA also commissions research into the public’s attitudes to, and understanding of, certain ad themes to help inform the decisions it makes and where the line should be drawn.

While many of 2017’s most complained about ad campaigns were seen across a range of media – for example social media, magazines, and companies’ own websites – television ads triggered the most complaints, demonstrating the continuing effectiveness of the medium at hitting mass audiences.

Two of the ads are from campaigns that also featured in 2016’s Top Ten list, meaning these campaigns have continued to court controversy over two years (Match.com and Maltesers). One of the campaigns has been on the list for three years in a row (Moneysupermarket.com).

In response to complaints reported in the media, two ads were quickly removed by the advertisers (Dove and McDonald’s) without the need for further ASA action. The ASA decided each of the remaining eight ads had not crossed the line on offensiveness, so the complaints were not upheld.

2017’s most complained about ads are:

1 Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd

755 Complaints – Not upheld

This year, KFC’s ad, featuring a chicken dancing to a rap soundtrack, received complaints that it was disrespectful to chickens and distressing for vegetarians, vegans and children, since it depicted a chicken who was heading for slaughter. The ASA ruled it was unlikely that the ad would cause distress or serious or widespread offence as there were no explicit references to animal slaughter.

2 Moneysupermarket.com Ltd

455 Complaints – Not upheld

This Moneysupermarket.com ad campaign also featured in the ASA’s Top Ten list for 2015 and 2016. Like many of the ads in the same campaign, 2017’s ad re-featured the two #epicsquads – the strutters and the builders – and a new female character.

Many found the ad to be offensive on the grounds that it was overtly sexual and possibly homophobic. The ASA thought the character’s movements would generally be seen as dance moves and not in a sexual context. It also thought most viewers would recognise the ad’s intended take on humour. It ruled it was unlikely to condone or encourage harmful discriminatory behaviour.

3 Unilever UK Ltd (Dove)

391 Complaints – Not investigated; ads removed         

Dove produced a series of ads that contained statistics and opinions about breastfeeding in public. The ads were featured across magazines, social media, and Dove’s own website. Many criticised the language, such as “put them away”, as it might encourage criticism of breastfeeding. Some were also concerned that the ads might encourage neglecting crying babies. After listening to the public, Dove issued an apology and subsequently pulled the ads and amended their website.

4 Match.com International Ltd

293 Complaints – Not upheld

Match.com’s ad, starring a lesbian couple kissing passionately, appears again in our list of most complained about ads. The ASA received similar complaints last year, when it was number three on our list, about whether the ad was too sexually explicit for children to see. It ruled then that the ad did not cross the line.  Over the two years, the ad has attracted almost 1,200 complaints.

5 McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd

256 Complaints – Not investigated; ads removed

McDonald’s produced a TV ad featuring a boy and his mother talking about his dead father. From the conversation, the boy became visibly upset as he found few similarities between him and the father that his mother described. Ultimately, he found comfort when she told him that both he and his father loved McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish burger. The ad attracted criticism that it was trivialising grief, was likely to cause distress to those who have experienced a close family death and was distasteful to compare an emotive theme to a fast food promotion. The fast food chain issued an apology and pulled the ads.

6 RB UK Commercial Ltd (V.I.Poo)

207 Complaints – Not upheld

A fictional Hollywood starlet shares her best kept secret on how to maintain good toilet etiquette – by using the V.I.Poo spray, an air freshener. Many people found the discussion of going to the toilet unsavoury. The ASA ruled that the ad was a light-hearted way of introducing the product and didn’t consider its reference to the “devil’s dumplings” likely to break its rules on offence.

7 DSG Retail Ltd (Currys PC World)

131 Complaints – Not upheld

This was a TV ad about spending Christmas in front of the TV. The Currys PC World ad showed a set of parents telling their children that they would like to celebrate Christmas “traditionally” this year by sitting by the fire, signing carols and having long conversations. The mother then laughed at the visibly upset children and explained it was a joke. She led the family to the next room to show them a new Oleg TV that her employer, Currys PC World, had allowed her to bring home and test. Complainants believed the ad was offensive because it promoted materialism and equated Christmas with watching TV instead of Christianity.

The ASA thought the ad was light-hearted and was meant to be humorous. It understood the allusions to consumerism might be perceived to be in bad taste by some, but considered it was unlikely to cause serious offence. The ad did not ridicule or denigrate Christians or Christianity, so was unlikely to offend on those grounds.

8 Telefonica Ltd (O2)

125 Complaints – Not upheld

O2’s ad about free screen replacements stirred complaints when it featured two men kissing and breaking one of the couple’s phone screens when he was pressed onto a table by the other man. Many felt the scene was too sexually explicit and scheduled inappropriately at times when children were likely to be watching. Some also felt the portrayal of a same-sex relationship was offensive to their religious beliefs.

The ASA noted that the scene in question was brief and did not contain any graphic or overly sexual imagery.  It ruled that it did not require a scheduling restriction and the depiction of a gay couple would not cause serious or widespread offence,

9 Macmillan Cancer Support

116 Complaints – Not upheld

A TV ad for Macmillan Cancer Support included fast-moving scenes of a father talking to his daughter, receiving chemotherapy, vomiting in a sink, sitting slumped in a bath, and crying in a car before being comforted by a nurse. People complained that the imagery was overly graphic and distressing to viewers. Though the ASA understood some of the scenes, particularly the one in which the man vomited, were distressing to some viewers, it believed they served to illustrate the reality of living with cancer. The storyline of the ad and the service that Macmillan Cancer Support was advertising provided context. The ASA believed it addressed the serious nature of the illness appropriately. Furthermore, scheduling restrictions meant it wouldn’t be shown around children’s programmes.

10 Mars Chocolate UK Ltd (Maltesers)

92 Complaints – Not upheld

And finally, Maltesers appears in ASA’s top 10 list for a second year.

Many continued to find the featured woman, who described having a spasm during a romantic encounter with her boyfriend, to be offensive and overly sexual. Some also felt it was offensive to portray the woman, who was in a wheelchair, in this manner.

The ad had already been given a post-9pm scheduling restriction, which we considered sufficient as most viewers are aware that advertising content after 9pm might include more adult themes. In instances when the ad was seen earlier in the day, the ad was seen around adult-themed programmes, such as Made in Chelsea and The Inbetweeners, and was unlikely to be considered to have been inappropriately scheduled.

The ASA ruling said it found the women’s conversation to be light-hearted and didn’t think the allusion to the woman’s romantic encounter would cause serious or widespread offence. On the matter of portraying the woman in a wheelchair in this manner, it believed the ad was championing diversity and did not think that it denigrated or degraded those with disabilities.

The ASA is the independent regulator of advertisements across all media in the UK. It does so in the public interest and with the co-operation of advertisers, agencies and media owners who are committed to observing the Advertising Codes, otherwise known as the CAP Codes. The CAP Codes are drawn up by the Committee of Advertising Practice.

The Institute of Promotional Marketing, the UK marketing trade body for promotions which owns www.promomarketing.info, is a stakeholder in CAP and an integral part of the UK’s self-regulatory system for advertising and marketing. The IPM promotes the CAP Codes in its world-renowned education and training programmes, and in its annual IPM Awards – any entry which breaks the CAP Codes is disqualified.

The post 2017’s Most Complained About Ads appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

The Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP), the body which writes the rules which govern UK advertising and marketing communications, has announced that a new rule will be introduced into the UK Advertising Codes in 2018 to ban harmful gender stereotyping.

Last year, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the body which administers the UK Advertising Codes, published a report into harmful gender stereotyping in advertising, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm. This provided an evidence-based case for stronger regulation of ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics which can be harmful to people, including ads which mock people for not conforming to gender stereotypes.

Ella Smillie from CAP (pictured) announced the planned new rule yesterday in Cardiff ahead of a reception at the Wales Millennium Centre with Julie James AM, the Minister responsible for Equalities in the Welsh Government. Smillie said: “Some gender stereotypes in ads can contribute to harm for adults and children by limiting how people see themselves, how others see them, and potentially restricting the life decisions they take. The introduction of a new advertising rule from 2018 will help advertisers to know where to draw the line on the use of acceptable and unacceptable stereotypes.”

Smillie added: “We’ll set out our proposed new standards in Spring 2018 and openly consult on them. That’s why I’m pleased to be in Cardiff at an event with the Welsh Minister responsible for Equalities, Julie James AM, to invite the Welsh public policy community to engage with our consultation and submit their views about whether we’re appropriately reflecting what the evidence is telling us.”

Following the review, CAP committed to develop new standards on ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics. CAP is now developing a new rule and guidance on the depiction of gender stereotypes in ads, which it will consult on in Spring 2018.

Evidence in the review suggested that harmful stereotypes can restrict the choices, aspirations and opportunities of children, young people and adults. These stereotypes can be reinforced by some advertising, which therefore plays a part in unequal gender outcomes, with costs for individuals, the economy and society. The review welcomed the ASA’s track record of banning ads on grounds of objectification, inappropriate sexualisation and for normalising unhealthily thin body images, but found that more needs to be done on gender stereotypical roles and characteristics portrayed in ads.

The new rule will not ban all forms of gender stereotypes.  For example, the evidence falls short of calling for a ban on ads depicting a woman cleaning or a man doing DIY tasks.  But, subject to context and content considerations, the evidence suggests certain types of depictions are likely to be problematic, for example, an ad which depicts family members creating a mess while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up or an ad that features a man trying and failing to undertake simple parental or household tasks because of stereotypes associated with his gender.

Guy Parker, Chief Executive of the Advertising Standards Authority, observed: “While advertising is only one of many factors that contribute to unequal gender outcomes, we welcome CAP’s decision to introduce a new rule on harmful gender stereotypes in ads.  Although companies have responded positively and constructively to our report, with welcome examples of voluntary action, there is more to do.  We are determined to make sure our regulation calls out harmful and outdated practices and a new rule in the Advertising Codes will help tackle the harmful gender stereotypes identified in our review of the evidence”

Laura Kelly of the Institute of Promotional Marketing’s Regulatory advisory Service said: “The introduction of a new rule on gender stereotypes is a great example of the proactive work the advertising and marketing industry is doing to stay touch with modern values and minimise harm to consumers. This presents an opportunity for agencies and brands to retire old fashioned stereotypes and create innovative promotional campaigns that reflect societal change and really capture the public’s imagination.”

The post Harmful gender stereotyping in marketing to be banned in 2018 appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

The ASA has committed itself to being tougher on negative gender stereotyping in all marketing communications. Laura Kelly of the IPM’s Legal Advisory Service explores what this means for promotional marketers…

This week the ASA published a report, “Depictions, Perceptions and Harm”, following a major review of gender stereotypes in advertising.

It indicates a renewed commitment from the ASA to take a tougher stance on stereotypical gender roles or characteristics which can potentially cause harm. Some will consider this a long needed step in the right direction, but others may see it as a restriction on creative freedoms. So does the promotional marketing industry need to be worried?

It’s rare to see complaints about harm and offence relating to promotions – consumers are more often concerned with misleading headlines, missing conditions and making sure they get their prizes.  However, when they do hit the headlines they can cause a stir. For example, a newspaper promotion offering a chance to “Win a date with a Daily Star Page 3 babe”, describing the women as a “sizzling prize” was unsurprisingly ruled by the ASA to be sexist and offensive. It may seem like an archaic idea – but this ran just two years ago.

Hopefully, few brands will want to run obviously problematic competitions like the above!

But the ASA also wants to target more insidious stereotyping – well known “characters” such as the bumbling, inept father and the servile, put upon mother are likely to fall into this category. Brands with links to traditionally gendered items such household products and toys will want to be wary.

Positive spins on gender with inclusive messages are a great way to go, as we’ve seen from the enormous coverage the “This Girl Can” campaign achieved, among others. But brands should also consider whether gender even needs to be part of their targeting strategy. The IPM’s Grand Prix winner this year, Sense’s Discomfort Future campaign for The Economist, aimed to engage open-minded people who reacted positively to unusual situations, offering free coffee from apparently recycled sewage water. It focused on what made their customers unique, not their gender.

So perhaps the main takeaway here should be that the best ideas don’t need tired gender stereotypes anyway. If you’re creative, the ASA’s new approach shouldn’t need to frighten you at all.

If you’re an IPM member and have any questions about the law, the CAP Code and other regulations or best practice, you can contact Laura at laurak@theipm.org.uk

The post Do Promotional Marketers need to be worrying about Gender Stereotypes? appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

John Sylvester, Chairman of Sodexo Benefits & Reward Services UK, takes up the role of Chairman of the Institute of Promotional Marketing (IPM) from January 1st 2017. Sylvester, who was previously Vice Chairman of the IPM, succeeds Graham Temple.

John Sylvester says: “I am delighted to follow Graham into this role and would like to thank him for the remarkable commitment and energy that he has so generously given to the IPM over his term.  We see significant changes ahead with Brexit and in the world economy.  Significant change is also apparent in the promotional marketing industry and I look forward to working with Carey Trevill and her team at the IPM, at time when the industry has the opportunity to be at its most disruptive and influential.  We remain committed to working closely with our Members to champion their interests and the interests of the industry during this time of unprecedented change.”

During Graham Temple’s two-year term as IPM Chairman, the organisation has seen significant changes. These include the appointment of Lord Black of Brentwood, Executive Director of the Telegraph Media Group and a Conservative Life Peer, as IPM President and spearheading a drive to address the non-regulation of political advertising.

At the end of 2016, the IPM also held elections for a number of board positions. As a result, Jon Fish, Group Partnerships and Loyalty Director, Merlin Entertainments and Adam Azor, Senior VP Integrated and Digital Marketing at Jack Morton Worldwide both joined the IPM Board from 1st January 2017.  Bob Suppiah, Director of Promotions & Partnership Marketing at Sky, Becky Munday, CEO of Mando, and Marcus Sandwith, CEO at Haygarth were all re-elected to the Board.

Jamie Barnard, General Counsel, Global Media, Marketing and eCommerce for Unilever, and Tara Honeywell, Managing Director Mediator, both stepped down. Outgoing Chairman Graham Temple expressed gratitude to both for their outstanding support for the organisation.

The Institute of Promotional Marketing acts as the voice of the promotional marketing industry within the UK, working alongside other marketing bodies to ensure that its members’ interests are properly represented in Whitehall, Parliament and Europe. With over 200 members, drawn from brand owners, marketing agencies and service agencies, the IPM’s mission is to promote, protect and promote effective promotional marketing across all media channels, helping create confident and informed marketers.

The IPM has serving representatives on various industry committees, such as the Committee of Advertising Practice, the body responsible for writing the rules that underlie the UK’s self-regulatory system for marketing.

The post John Sylvester named as IPM Chairman appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Laura Kelly, Legal & Regulatory Advisor at the IPM, explains why changes to the CAP Code, the rules governing advertising and marketing in the UK, had to happen and the opportunities they offer to the promotions industry

The advertising and marketing industry is famed for many things; bringing to life brands, creating a huge economic impact, making us laugh or cry, making brands memorable. Marketing communications work – what we do has the power to influence people.

With great power, as always, comes great responsibility, a fact which the UK’s marketers have long realised. That’s why we have the CAP Code and the ASA to uphold it at the heart of a self-regulatory system which is recognised internationally as world class.

Our industry is constantly changing – take the way, over the past 20 years, that digital technology has completely revolutionised the way brands talk to consumers and made marketing, in some ways, far more powerful. Society changes as well – few of us do as much hard manual work as our grandparents did or get as much exercise.

As a result, our waistlines are expanding – and the particular worry is how our children are being affected. Obesity levels amongst the young are increasing.

Increased concern about obesity has led to a focus on advertising and marketing of calorie-rich food and drink, and there has been a keen interest in how we promote certain HFSS (High, Fat, Salt and Sugar) brands to children and families. We have seen accusations levelled at the marketing industry that what we do is making us fat and damaging our health.

Late in 2015, the Government launched its soft drinks taxation promise to help address the growing concern about obesity, centered on the high sugar intake of children. The Government promised the UK public that it would tackle the brands responsible.

Several months and many consultations later, the efforts of CAP, the Advertising Association and many other interested parties (including the IPM) have managed to prove that advertising does not in fact contribute in any significant way to the increase in obesity levels in children – other factors such as parental influence and the switch from physical activity to playing computer games bear far more responsibility.

However, the advertising and marketing industry recognises that there is much more it can do to help. To begin with, the industry decided to tackle at source the rules that govern the work we do.

The IPM, as part of the self-regulatory framework that governs UK broadcast and non-broadcast rules, was a key member of the consultation groups to examine the areas of critical understanding in children when looking at the effects of advertising and marketing messaging.

The outcome of this work has seen a CAP Code change that signals a huge change in the way brands can promote to under 16s and under 12s.

As a reminder:

• Ads that directly or indirectly promote an HFSS product cannot appear in children’s media;
• Ads for HFSS products cannot appear in other media where children make up over 25% of the audience;
• Ads for HFSS products will not be allowed to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities popular with children. Advertisers may, however, now use those techniques to better promote healthier options;
• The Department of Health nutrient profiling model will be used to classify which products are HFSS.

Creating a future for responsible promotion

At the IPM, over the past two years we have seen a shift towards more responsible promotion across the board, particularly FMCG brands. Being involved in this consultation has shown that the entire industry embraces this forward thinking approach and we are delighted to support the changes at the IPM.

These changes also bring opportunity. Restrictions on using promotions, licenced characters and celebrities in food ads directed at children have been loosened. They will now be permitted in ads for all non HFSS foods, giving marketers powerful new techniques to better promote healthier options.

With such a positive change happening across the industry, we can truly say we are part of the solution and not the problem. For a time, we were at real risk of losing our right to self-regulate and the IPM supports the new rules every step of the way.

The IPM will actively promote the rule changes from now on, so that brand owners are ready and able to implement media and promotional changes in advance of the new rules coming into effect.

Laura Kelly is Legal & Regulatory Advisor at the Institute of Promotional Marketing (IPM), advising marketers at client companies, agencies and suppliers on how to ensure that their promotional marketing activities are legal and that they conform to the CAP Code, the rules which marketing and advertising in the UK must follow under the country’s self regulatory system.

The IPM is holding a special webinar on Wednedsay 15th December in partnership with the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) to explain the changes to the CAP Code on HFSS food and drink marketing. Places are free and you can book your place here.

The post Why HFSS marketing needs to change appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Following a full public consultation, the Committee of Advertising Practice – CAP – has today announced tough new rules banning the advertising of high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) food or soft drink products in children’s media.

The rules will apply across all non-broadcast media including print, cinema, online and in social media, and CAP has stressed that they will also apply to ‘TV-like content’ online, such as on video-sharing platforms or advergames, if they are directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children.

One key benefit for the promotions industry is a clarification of the rules on marketing communications using promotional techniques, characters or celebrities to promote healthier options to children aged 11 and under.

Changes to the rules will mean advertisers will be able to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities in ads for non HFSS foods, allowing more creative ways for the industry to promote healthier food options to children and their families.

The new rules, which will apply in media targeted at under-16s, will come into effect on 1 July 2017.

In summary:

• Ads that directly or indirectly promote an HFSS product cannot appear in children’s media
• Ads for HFSS products cannot appear in other media where children make up over 25% of the audience
• Ads for HFSS products will not be allowed to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities popular with children; advertisers may now use those techniques to better promote healthier options
• The Department of Health nutrient profiling model will be used to classify which products are HFSS

This significant change is designed to help protect the health and wellbeing of children.

Bringing the non-broadcast advertising rules in line with the TV rules, the new restrictions will lead to a major reduction in the number of ads for HFSS food and drinks seen by children. And it will also mean ads for HFSS products will no longer be allowed to appear around TV-like content online, such as on video-sharing platforms or advergames, if they are directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children.

CAP’s review and the new rules come in response to wider concerns in society about childhood obesity and the public health challenges it poses. The new rules also respond to shifting media habits amongst young people and evolving advertising techniques which have fundamentally changed children’s relationship with media and advertising. Research from Ofcom shows that young people aged 5-15 are spending around 15 hours each week online – overtaking time spent watching a TV set for the first time.

There are many factors that have an impact on childhood obesity, and available evidence shows that the effect of advertising on children’s food preferences is relatively small, particularly when compared to other factors like parental influences; however, CAP believes that even a very small positive impact from these new ad restrictions could play a meaningful role in reducing potential harm to children.

Chairman of CAP, James Best said: “Childhood obesity is a serious and complex issue and one that we’re determined to play our part in tackling. These restrictions will significantly reduce the number of ads for high, fat, salt or sugar products seen by children. Our tough new rules are a clear demonstration that the ad industry is willing and ready to act on its responsibilities and puts the protection of children at the heart of its work.”

The IPM’s Managing Director Carey Trevill says: “With significant changes to the CAP Code, the IPM will be part of the story that changes the way advertising and marketing communications affect children today and tomorrow. We have an important part to play in the way our consumers view marketing communcations. Helping the wider community understand the steps we have taken as an industry can only lead to improved campaigns.”

Questions on what the changes mean for your campaigns? The IPM are running a webinar with their Legal Advisor, Laura Kelly and with CAP on December 15^th. Places are free and you can book yours here.

The post CAP changes HFSS food and drink ad and promo rules appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has published independent research into consumers’ understanding of broadband speed claims made in ads.

The ASA commissioned the research to test whether regulatory standards, set by the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) and enforced by the ASA, are effective in protecting the public from misleading claims.

The standards permit headline speed claims that are achievable by at least 10% of customers, where they are preceded with the words “up to” and are qualified, as appropriate, to help manage consumers’ expectations of achievable speeds. The study also tested consumers’ understanding of alternative speed claims including average speed claims, range speed claims, and minimum speed claims.

The research, conducted by GfK, found that:

• Speed is an important factor for a significant proportion of consumers who are making decisions between providers;

• Levels of knowledge and understanding of broadband speeds vary, but overall it is low with many not knowing what speed they need to carry out daily online tasks;

• Most understand that the higher the number in the ad, the higher the speed of the service; but many are unclear on what this means for them and what speed they would likely achieve;

• Crucially, the research shows that, despite this uncertainty, most consumers believe they are likely to receive a speed at or close to the headline speed claim when, for many, that is not likely to be the case.

These findings underpin a call by the ASA’s for a change to the way broadband speed claims are advertised to ensure consumers are not misled, and a decision by  CAP to review its guidance to advertisers on broadband speed claims. CAP will report publicly in spring 2017.

The ASA will continue to have regard to the existing guidance for the duration of CAP’s review, ensuring that there is no reduction in the protection afforded to consumers in that period.

Guy Parker, Chief Executive of the ASA, says: “Making sure ads don’t mislead is at the heart of what we do.  We’ve taken action this year to tackle confusing broadband pricing, to the benefit of consumers.  Our new research indicates that speed claims in ads contribute to consumers’ expectations of the broadband speeds they’ll receive, but their expectations are not being met.  That needs to change.”

Shahriar Coupal, Director of CAP, adds: “CAP welcomes the ASA’s research and we’ll now begin the process of updating our guidance and publish a response next spring. The research provides good insights into consumers’ understanding of broadband speed claims, but it doesn’t identify an obvious alternative way to communicate speeds that would be suitable to everybody’s needs.

The IPM, along with other UK marketing industry trade bodies, is a stakeholder in CAP, the body which writes the CAP Code, the rules which marketers are required to adhere to under the UK’s self-regulatory system governing advertising and marketing. The ASA is the body which investigates when companies are thought to have broken the CAP Code.

The post ASA researches broadband speed claims appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

The Institute of Promotional Marketing (IPM) has welcomed plans from the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) to tighten up the rules surrounding the advertising and marketing of High Fat Salt Sugar (HFSS) foods, particularly to children, and is encouraging the promotional marketing industry to contribute to CAP’s public consultation on the issue.

The IPM, which is a stakeholder in CAP, points out that there is growing pressure on the marketing industry to make effective changes in the way it promotes to children and families.

The IPM’s Managing Director, Carey Trevill, comments: “The IPM welcomes the suggested amendments to the CAP Code, in particular the additional clarity provided in the proposed revisions around HFSS (High Fat Salt and Sugar) foods and young audiences.”

Trevill adds that “this is a sensitive but important issue, and the suggested changes to the Code represents a recognition that the advertising and marketing industries can be part of the solution when it comes to getting the message out and addressing the country’s concerns around childhood, and adult, obesity.”

In passing, Trevill also highlighted the fact that the proposals include changing references in the CAP Code to use the term ‘promotional marketing’ instead of the term ‘sales promotion’. Trevill says: “We also welcome the revision to the code in amending language from sales promotion to promotional marketing. This dynamic industry has long been conducting campaigns with activations well beyond sales promotion outputs, and it is wonderful for this variety of work to be recognised in the Code.”

CAP is the body which writes the CAP Code, the rules governing advertising and marketing in the UK under the UK’s self-regulatory system. CAP has just opened a public consultation on its proposals, which include:

• Introducing a new rule to the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Direct and Promotional Marketing (the CAP Code) to limit where advertising for food and soft drink products high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS products) can be placed in all non-broadcast media, including traditional and online media;
• Banning HFSS product advertising in media targeted at, or of particular appeal to, children and whether that should apply to under 12s or under 16s;
• Appling the existing rules which prohibit the use of promotions and licensed characters and celebrities popular with children in food and drink advertising to advertising for HFSS products only, allowing more creative ways for healthier foods to be advertised to children.

The proposals to change the CAP Code follow on from research by ISBA (the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the body representing client companies into advertising and its effect on obesity, particularly in children. This found that available evidence shows that advertising has a modest effect on children’s food preferences, but other factors like parental influence, opportunities for physical exercise and education play greater roles in the causes of, and solutions to, childhood obesity.

The marketing industry has pledged to take the lead to prove that advertising and marketing are not the ‘villains’ in the issue. CAP argues that even a relatively small positive impact from new advertising restrictions could make a meaningful contribution to tackling this important health issue.

CAP’s public consultation closes at 5.00pm on July 22nd 2016. The full consultation document can be read here.

James Best, Chairman of CAP, says: “Too many children in the UK are growing up overweight or even obese, potentially damaging their health in later life and imposing a high cost on society. Advertising is just one small factor in a very complex equation but we believe we can play a positive part in addressing an urgent societal challenge. In proposing new rules, our aim is to strike the right balance between protecting children and enabling businesses to continue advertising their products responsibly.”

The IPM will be holding a webinar in the coming weeks to examine the changes and what these mean in practical terms for brands and agencies. A representative from CAP will be on hand during the webinar to answer your questions. Anyone interested in registering their interest for this webinar should visit the IPM website.

The IPM have further suggested that anyone wanting to understand more about the proposed changes and how they can comment, or to gain a better understanding of what the proposals may mean for their brands, can contact the IPM’s experts on contact@theipm.org.uk, or call 020 7291 7730.

The post CAP Code launches consultation appeared first on IPM Bitesize.