The key finding of an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) report, published yesterday (Thursday 5th September), reveals that people struggle to identify when social media posts by influencers are ads and confirms that the ASA’s current approach of requiring influencers to use a prominent reference, such as #ad, is necessary as a minimum.

The ASA’s findings dispel any argument that labels aren’t needed and re-emphasise the importance of influencers being upfront and clear with their followers about when they are advertising.

Over the last 18 months the ASA has conducted a comprehensive review, including research with the public and a broad look at existing academic literature, into how and what kinds of labels and other factors help people understand when social media posts by influencers are advertising. The ASA undertook the project to gauge whether its regulation is in the right place and as part of its ongoing work to provide guidance and clarity to influencers, brands and agencies on how to stick to the ad rules so that consumers aren’t misled.

Where an influencer is posting about a brand because they’ve been paid to do so (either in money or ‘in kind’ e.g. with free goods), the post must be obviously identifiable as an ad.  Both the ASA and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recommend upfront disclosures, such as #ad.  Labelling a post clearly as an ad allows people to know when they’re being sold to, enabling them to make an informed judgment about the commercial intent behind it.

A finding consistent across the ASA’s research was that for an influencer post to be obviously identifiable, a label must first be noticed and then understood. Crucially, a visible and well understood disclosure, such as #ad, increased the likelihood of participants in the ASA’s research identifying influencer adverts as ‘definitely an ad’.

While the research also indicated that other presentational factors may be important to ensure influencer ad posts are obviously identifiable as ads, the ASA’s focus will be on ensuring influencers and brands are being upfront and clear with #ad. The ASA, alongside the CMA, is active in ensuring transparency in this area. Influencers and brands who don’t disclose ads are not only treating their followers unfairly, they erode trust in the wider and legitimate influencer community and run the risk of potential investigation and enforcement action.

The ASA will now consider carefully the outcomes of this work. It will follow-up on the themes and issues brought to light by its research and target those parties involved in influencer advertising to make sure they’re following the rules. This includes hosting an influencer training event on 1 October with the CMA at which they will further explain when a post counts as an ad and how and when they should be labelled. The ASA will also share the findings of this new, original research with other regulators, both domestically and internationally, to facilitate ongoing discussions about how best to make sure ads are obviously identifiable as ads.

Guy Parker, Chief Executive at The ASA, says: “The research tells us that all of us can find it hard to identify when an influencer is advertising, so it’s crucial that ads are labelled clearly. Our message to influencers and brands couldn’t be clearer: be upfront with followers, for example by using #ad.”

The post Clarity for consumers: Why #ad is essential in paid influencer posts appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Jo Hudson, Planning Director at PrettyGreen shares how brands and agencies can embrace change to open up new opportunities.

Following the high fat/sugar/salt (HFSS) regulation, new CAP guidelines around gender stereotyping and ASA rules on how influencers should be working with brands, today’s marketeers are having to navigate the most complex set of rules ever seen in our industry.

It is easy to feel frustrated and restricted by additional regulation but, in truth, they are only a response to social and cultural changes that are already well underway. Interests in healthier eating, for example, have been growing for decades, whilst movements like “MeToo” and #GenderPayGap reveal society’s ongoing intolerance of gender inequality.

So, if consumers are ready for the change, shouldn’t marketing be embracing it too?

The way we see it, regulation opens up opportunity. It forces brands to think in new ways – to take paths that have not been travelled before. Where regulation has hit, smart brands respond with lateral thinking, reinventing their communication for a new era. Whether it is through identifying new audiences, embracing new channels or subverting the rules; those who win do so because they engage with the regulation and then boldly look for new spaces within it.

Regulations within cigarette advertising produced the best work for brands like Silk Cut

Limitations relating to media or scheduling can open up the biggest opportunities of all. Events, influencers, earned media and mass-market spectacles like sport and music can deliver similar levels of reach with more targeted content. Red Bull (the brand our agency was born at) delivers some of the world’s most engaging marketing via a channel mix that places TV lower down the pecking order than most brands would dare to consider. It is an approach that has delivered consistent and phenomenal global growth, with 6.8 billion cans now sold in 171 countries.

Red Bull’s world class channel mix has true media neutrality

From a messaging point of view, brands in sectors surrounded by regulation could take the boldest response of all by staring directly at the social issues driving the restriction (e.g. addiction, in the case of gambling, or health concerns, for high sugar products). An honest acknowledgement of the issues demonstrates empathy and could inspire innovations around being part of the fix. Sometimes this might involve a big strategic shift, or, in other cases, a new and more honest conversation with consumers.

Repositioning Coke Zero within the portfolio allowed Coca-Cola to be part of the solution to high sugar diets

Real honesty from brands is highly celebrated, but rarely practised

With the right planning, regulation should never result in a crisis.  The onus is on both brands and agencies to stay ahead of any new restrictions and, together, seek the opportunities that arise as a result. With more means and ways to communicate with audiences than ever, coupled with a deeper understanding of how, where and why audiences connect with brands, there is a playground of options available. At PrettyGreen we see only exciting times ahead for those ready to embrace the change.

Contact  hello@itsprettygreen.com

The post How we embrace change – a watershed moment for brands appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) Annual Report 2018 published yesterday reveals that more ads have been amended or withdrawn than ever before as a result of their work. And, in a year when online cases* outnumbered television cases by almost 3:1, it also highlights the new, proactive and innovative projects ASA and CAP are undertaking as part of a new five year strategy focused on having more impact online.

*paid ads online and companies’ own ad claims on their own websites, social media spaces, apps, advergames, as well as video-on-demand and mobile.

In a record year, the ASA:

• Resolved 33,727complaints about 25,259 ads
  • Of those, 16,059 complaints (41% increase on 2017) were about 14,257 online ads (38% increase)
  • 10,773 complaints (14% increase) were about 5,748 TV ads (23% increase)

• Resolved 27,014 own-initiative compliance cases
• Overall, the ASA secured the amendment or withdrawal of 10,850 ads (a 53% increase on 2017)

Over the same period, CAP, which is the body that writes and maintains the UK Advertising Codes, delivered 535,478 pieces of advice and training to businesses to help them get their ads right (38% increase on 2017).

The report also reviews the actions that have been taken to tackle consumer harms and to protect the financially vulnerable; including projects on:

• Secondary Tickets – rulings against the main operators in the secondary ticketing sector for misleading pricing claims on their websites, including enforcement action against viagogo (facing the prospect of prosecution, viagogo came into compliance with our rules)
• Parcel Delivery Charges – Enforcement Notice issued to retailers across the UK making clear that a definitive claim about “UK delivery” should apply wherever a consumer lives, including Northern Ireland and northern Scotland
• Superimposed text – research published into whether TV viewers can read and understand superimposed text (supers). Subsequently, CAP toughened the standards we require for supers, while the ASA announced it will take a stricter approach to ensure qualifications are presented clearly
• New guidance on gambling ads – new guidance on children and young people to make it even clearer what advertisers need to do to target their ads responsibly and to protect under-18s from content likely to appeal particularly to them, including guidance on the use of animations and child-like cartoon characters

As well as setting out the work that has been undertaken to make UK ads responsible, the ASA and CAP highlight the measures they need to take to be even more effective, especially online. While the ASA system already regulates online advertising, including companies’ own claims on their websites and social media spaces, its new strategy, “More Impact Online” responds to the fact that people are spending more time online, businesses are increasingly advertising online and the pace of technological change online is contributing to societal concern.

The ASA has already taken its first steps to strengthen further the regulation of online advertising through its recent use of new monitoring technology in the form of child ‘avatars’ – online profiles which simulate children’s browsing activity – to identify ads that children see online. This has enabled the ASA to take swift action to ban ads from five gambling operators which were served to child avatars on children’s websites. The ASA is planning to extend this avatar work, as well as to explore how other new technologies can help it better protect the public.

Guy Parker, Chief Executive at The ASA, says: “It’s been a busy year, largely driven by complaints and cases about online ads. That’s why our new five-year strategy is focused on strengthening further the regulation of online advertising and using new tech to protect the public. Our recent use of new avatar technology is a taste of what’s to come under the new strategy and we look forward to working with our partners to increase further the impact we’re having online.”

The post ASA and CAP Annual Report 2018 – online cases outnumber TV by almost 3:1 appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

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 following comment was written by Graham Temple, former Chairman of the Institute of Promotional Marketing, and published on The Drum.

Whenever you come across an advert in the newspaper or the bus on the way to work for a new breakfast cereal, mobile phone or even a bed bought on finance, you can usually be assured that what you are reading in that advert is the truth.

In fact, anything termed as “general advertising”, on the most part, should be a fair reflection of the product or service being promoted. That is because of the highly regarded Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) which protects the consumer by ensuring that all “general” ads are legal, decent, honest and truthful.

And if, following its robust complaints investigation process, an ad does not comply with the Advertising Code then the advertiser will soon know about it. This will include the ruling being published online and a request for the advertiser to immediately withdraw the offending ad.

So if you happen to be lying on your new Sealy mattress while eating your Shreddies and talking into your Samsung s8, then you can rest assured, literally, that someone out there is looking after your best interests when it comes to information you are given before making a decision to purchase such items.

However, when it comes to political advertising you might be surprised to find out that the opposite is the case. No one is monitoring and regulating the claims and promises made in advertisements from those who wish to, or already, govern Britain.

And why is that such an issue? Well, the problem is that Frank, my postman, doesn’t know that. Like Ali, who works at the Tesco Express in my village, neither of them knew there were two types of advertising: one classified as “General” and the other as “Political”.

They are in good company. Until the European referendum last June, the general public, and I include myself in this, were almost totally unaware that this was the case. For Frank and Ali this is understandable, why would they know?

It wasn’t until the build up to Brexit at the start of last year that I became aware that this was the system. With more than 30 years’ experience in the marketing business, and at the time chairman of the Institute of Promotional Marketing (IPM), an industry body and part of the regulatory system, I remember wondering if I was the only experienced marketeer who didn’t know this fact. Feeling slightly baffled, I mentioned this during an IPM board meeting and discovered that I was certainly not alone as most of my colleagues were equally uninformed. I was both relieved and disappointed.

Relieved to discover I was not alone and disappointed that as guardians and protectors, admittedly working in a specialist non-advertising area of self-regulation, we were not aware of this anomaly. Simply put, more protection is afforded to the information you are provided when buying a soap powder than given to voters when selecting the next party to lead this country; or in the case of Brexit, whether to be part of the largest trading market on the planet.

Unfortunately, there was no authority or code of practice in place for verifying Vote Leave campaign’s claims to fund the NHS instead of sending £350m a week to the EU, the ‘Turkey is joining the EU’ poster nor the Treasury’s mailshot claiming UK families would be £4,300 a year worse off if Britain left the EU.

Without doubt political advertising should be regulated, but it probably is not possible for several reasons. Not least because the short time frame of any election campaign makes it likely that any investigation of claims could still be ongoing after the election has taken place. It would be a bit like disallowing the winning goal in the FA Cup final several weeks after the trophy was handed over, but with far greater implications.

But I believe that there is something that can be done very easily and done right now. All it needs is this: the addition of a simple disclaimer or health warning such as required for financial ads, “interest rates can go up as well as down”, or in the case of alcohol, “drink responsibly”.

To fix the problem, political adverts need to be transparent and let the voter know that the claims made in such ads have not been previously verified, because they haven’t. This would keep political parties on their toes and encourage the voter to be more vigilant before making potentially life changing choices.

I have a feeling that political parties are unlikely to willingly embrace this idea, why would they be? A metaphor involving turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind. But it may well be time for us voters to ask for a change in law and perhaps the starting point is via a parliamentary petition. We can’t continue to vote for the future of this nation based on mistruths and lies and this small change would go a long way to at least making the public aware that not everything they see is fact.

If it’s good enough for Daz, then it should be good enough for Boris.

The post Take the fake out of political advertising appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

Brands need to assume a people-first approach and stop using stereotypes in their advertising not just because it’s the ethical thing to do: there’s also a growing commercial imperative, says Sally McLaren, director at Sense.

In the past few months several gender-related stories have hit the national headlines. Jodie Whittaker was announced as the first ever female Dr. Who, the BBC revealed its huge gender pay gap, John Lewis made its children’s clothing ‘gender neutral’, and it was refreshing to see the Advertising Standards Association (ASA) announce that it is working on tougher standards for what it called harmful gender stereotypes in advertisements.

The ASA’s stance hasn’t come a moment too soon. The issue has been bubbling under the surface since Procter & Gamble’s #unstereotyping speech at last year’s Cannes Lions Festival, where the brand pledged to end gender stereotyping across its brand advertising.

While this was welcomed wholeheartedly, it’s a touch ironic since P&G has done so much to promote stereotypes in its Fairy Liquid commercials over the years – they still featured a woman washing up as late as the Noughties! Only in the 2015 version did they first show a man doing the dishes. But let’s give credit where it’s due.

Although a lot of ad stereotyping these days is subtle, you can always find a jaw-dropping example, such as Uber’s French promotional marketing campaign a couple of years ago offering a 20-minute ride with an “incredibly hot chick”. Before it, and the related video, were taken down due to the public outcry, the blog post started off by asking readers: “Who said women don’t know how to drive?”

Around the same time a UK newspaper ran a promotion offering a chance to “Win a date with a Daily Star Page 3 babe.” The ASA ruled that newspaper campaign sexist and offensive. Its argument is that persistent stereotyping, which has built up over the years, can be harmful, as it restricts the choices, aspirations and opportunities for young adults. This was supported by research released recently by Universal McCann, which found 49% of women surveyed “felt pressure from ads to be a certain way” and 44% agreed that ads had made them feel “not good enough”.

So, what will the ASA’s new regulations mean for brands?

Hopefully, naming and shaming those that transgress will encourage them to clean up their acts. The question is, though, whether that will stop companies creating products that reinforce gender stereotypes. Perhaps the backlash by the general public will be enough to stop this, as Clarks found out recently. The shoe maker was accused of “everyday sexism” for calling a girls’ school shoe “Dolly Babe,” while the boys’ equivalent was named “Leader.” The girls’ shoes carry a heart-patterned insole, while the boys’ insoles are decorated with footballs.

Having been widely condemned across social media from the general public and prominent politicians, Dolly Babe was taken off sale.

Rather than hindering brands’ ability to promote themselves, unstereotyping should actually make their campaigns more engaging and effective.

Why? Because gender stereotyping is simply lazy marketing.

There is no denying that stereotypes can be effective. In this era of ‘audio-off’ video content, stereotypical behaviour portrayals are an easy way to get across a product benefit or brand’s message. But looking beyond gender stereotypes demands more creativity, resulting in campaigns that are more original and have greater impact.

Furthermore, stereotypical campaigns don’t reflect the real world, where – with the exception of pay it would seem – men’s and women’s roles have been becoming increasingly blurred over the past couple of decades. By falling back on gender stereotypes in their advertising, brands are no longer depicting a world that consumers recognise, so they are less likely to resonate or engage.

This lazy approach smacks of putting products before people. By thinking people first, and acknowledging, for example, the changing role of women within society that’s currently taking place, brands will create far more effective advertising. And this has been proved by the few brands that have made the leap.

It’s no fluke that Always’ Like a Girl Emojis US campaign was ruled the second most effective ad in 2016 by WARC research. This was one of a number of highly creative and pioneering campaigns under the Like a Girl banner that address the impact of gender stereotyping head on rather than depending on stereotypes to sell stuff like so many other brands do. The result has been highly effective marketing that has worked wonders for brand affinity, but also transformed the phrase ‘like a girl’ from an insult into an empowering message.

Meanwhile, Sport London’s This Girl Can campaign addressed not only gender stereotypes, but age ones too – and it was one of the most successful government campaigns ever run, resulting in a massive increase in British women playing sport. And Twitter got in on the act with the release of the latest ad in the powerful and empowering #SheInspiresMe campaign.

The 2016 Maltesers ads took things one step further, featuring female characters making light of their disabilities as an extension of the brand’s ‘Look on the Light Side’ campaign (see picture above). This was part of Channel 4’s diversity initiative in which it offered brands the chance to get £1 million’s worth of airtime for free in return for ads that featured disability. While this was a tremendous step forward, we do have to question if Mars would have made the ad without the airtime offer.

The main thing, however, is that Channel 4 inspired Mars to do this; and hopefully the fact that the resulting campaign was not only seen as pioneering but also highly successful will encourage the confectionery giant to continue to keep up the good work.

Looking at gender stereotyping from a different perspective, EDF Energy’s Pretty Curious campaign toured schools across the UK recently inspiring teenage girls to pursue science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. The aim was to tackle the gender imbalance in these subjects, which is threatening to cause a major skills gap in these key areas that are increasingly vital to the UK economy – and of course to EDF itself.

By fighting for gender equality, EDF is also helping secure its own future success. But so is Mars and the other brands that are ‘unstereotyping’, because they’re actually doing what consumers want.

Returning to the Universal McCann study, the research underlined the business benefits of pushing traditional gender boundaries, with 65% of women and 59% of men saying they like it when brands use traditional media to challenge stereotypes.

It’s not just what women want, but also what men want – so doesn’t it make commercial sense for brands to want it too?

Sally McLaren is a director at real world marketing agency Sense.

The post Gender stereotyping puts products before people – and consumers don’t like it! 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.

LSI Netherlands BV – owner of the Peperami brand – and agencies TLC Marketing and Sense were crowned the big winners at The IPM Awards 2017, taking home the trophies for Brand Owner of the Year, Agency of the Year and the coveted Grand Prix Award respectively.

This year’s winners, which were announced at the IPM’s black-tie Awards Gala on Wednesday June 7 at the London Hilton Park Lane, showcased and celebrated the very best in creativity and effectiveness in the promotional marketing industry.

The evening commenced with opening addresses from Lord Black of Brentwood, President of the IPM, and John Sylvester, the IPM’s chairman and Chairman of Sodexo Benefits & Reward Services UK, while the host for the event was Strictly Come Dancing star, Claudia Winkleman.

LSI was named as Brand Owner of the Year, after collecting two Gold and two Silver trophies for its campaign linking Peperami mascot, the Animal, with the Angry Birds movie.

TLC took the Agency of the Year accolade, having picked up four Gold awards and a Silver for a range of different campaigns.

The Grand Prix went to ‘real world’ agency Sense for its #H2O activation, part of the ‘Discomfort Future’ campaign on behalf of The Economist. This saw potential subscribers offered free coffee apparently made from recycled water from a portable toilet, to highlight the issue of water scarcity around the world. It won two Golds and was selected by the IPM awards judges as the best of the best.

The picture above shows Sense collecting their award from Lord Black (left) and the evening’s host, Claudia Winkleman (right).

Other agencies celebrating multiple trophies at the IPM Awards 2017 included The Circle Agency, ZEAL Creative, Toucan and Brand & Deliver. Behaviour change experts 23red managed to pick up Gold, Silver and Bronze in the Not for Profit, Charities and Public Sector category, the second time the agency has achieved this impressive feat.

John Sylvester, Chairman of the IPM, said: “The IPM Awards celebrate outstanding promotional marketing from the very best UK agencies and underscore our commitment to supporting best practice, creativity, effectiveness and innovation. Our Awards are open to everyone in the marketing industry and this year it was great to see both some familiar faces and some newcomers amongst the winners and the audience.”

This year, winners of Gold, Silver and Bronze IPM Awards all qualify for entry into the IMC European Awards, and the IPM will be contacting agencies shortly to explain how to take advantage of this. John Sylvester observes: “The UK produces world-class promotional marketing campaigns, and we want as many of our winners as possible to enter the IMCs so we can underline our leadership in this vitally important sector of the marketing and advertising industry.”

Sponsors for the IPM Awards 2017 included headline sponsor Sodexo, Westfield Shoppingtowns, Sykes, Emirat, Whistl, Granby Marketing Services, Promotional Handling, i-movo, POD Staffing, Peazie and Pictures Experience.

A full list of this year’s winner can be found on the IPM website.

The post Sense’s Economist campaign wins Grand Prix at IPM Awards 2017 appeared first on IPM Bitesize.