There’s been a lot of negative comment about the Winning Moments mechanic now being used in many prize promotions. But is the problem with the mechanic, or how promotions are being explained to consumers, asks Steve Berry of Emirat

Following some negative press about the overall odds of winning and the number of actual winners in some recent prize promotions, frozen food company McCain has become the latest brand to announce that they won’t be running any more Winning Moments-style prize promotions in the future.

The complaints about Winning Moments, and the strategic reaction by many promoters to them, lead many to ask if this reflects how all consumers feel. Is everyone losing faith in Winning Moments? I would argue not.

The average consumer would more than likely take a promotion in the spirit it was created – as a bit of fun. I am certain that McCain in no way set out to do anything other than inspire and delight their consumers with a fun and attractive promotion.

I don’t, in truth, know the facts – I didn’t work on this promotion – but I would guess McCain, working within a set budget, used fixed fee or promotional insurance to stretch that budget and provide the opportunity to win as many prizes as possible. Their intent ultimately would have been to make it more exciting, more appealing and to get a better response.

Compliance with the CAP Code

If this promotion was set up and implemented in accordance with the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) codes, the rules which govern all marketing activity in the UK, which I imagine it was, then all the prizes which the public were told could be won were in fact available to be won.

Therefore, the fact remains, had more people played, more prizes would have been won.

Let’s not forget, the whole idea of a promotion is as an enticement to purchase, the end goal being that you purchase the product, not enter a promotion. Furthermore, not all promotions guarantee a reward in exchange for this purchase, and they are not intended to. It’s a bonus, an add-on, a supplement to the product which is, most importantly, what you are actually buying!

The bag of chips cost no more than usual, therefore it hasn’t cost anything to enter this promotion. What then is there to feel disgruntled about? It’s not like buying a lottery ticket where you are actually paying to enter a competition. But again, with this too, you are only given a chance to win and no guarantees are given.

So why then, in the context of a promotion, which you are not paying to enter, does the idea that someone ‘could’ win seem to be an alienating concept all of a sudden?

I have read a lot of criticism and cries for promotional prizes to be ‘guaranteed’; but before promoters react, I would ask that they put this into context. While a promotion might guarantee prizes and therefore winners, it doesn’t dictate any differential in the ultimate appeal or number of participants that engage in a promotion. More winners, yes. More entries? Sadly, no.

Having a small number of guaranteed prizes can actually harm your promotion and objectives. This is due to the fact that the average consumer will perceive that, with only a few prizes to be won, they have very little chance of winning and so won’t bother to take part.

Worse still, they may not even buy the product, or in the frequency you are looking for, which is the whole reasoning for running the promotion in the first place!

The prizes are then only won by those that bother to take part, who perhaps aren’t the target audience that the promotion is aimed at.

I have seen for myself the same pool of participants winning prizes repeatedly during a promotion and in lots of cases, across a variety of promotions. These people are naturally the first to criticise a promotion with longer odds and no guaranteed winners because, frankly, they aren’t winning.

Your average consumer probably wouldn’t have the same view and it’s a shame for any brand to shy away from a Winning Moments promotion because of the view of a minority.

Winning Moments – indeed, all prize promotions with a ‘chance’ element – have their benefits. They allow for more inspiring and exciting promotions, which we all know have a far greater marketing impact, reach and ROI than your average free prize draw. They can help facilitate the creative, fun and fabulous promotions that we love to see on the shelves, by making them affordable and exciting at the same time. I don’t want to see promotional marketing like this disappear, especially when it really doesn’t have to.

In all fairness, though, there are perhaps two sides to this argument. You could argue that if you usually buy a different brand and made a buying choice solely based on the ‘chance’ to win something, do you deserve better odds? Maybe a guaranteed reward? I can certainly see the point to this argument.

Striking a happy medium

Perhaps, then, there has to be a balance with these things, a way to offer a fantastic promotion and keep the odds reasonable; by being just that.

Here, in my humble opinion, is how to go about striking that balance:

• Create a good ratio of packs to wins – 100m packs and a few prizes that ‘could’ be won isn’t a good ratio to go on. Decide what would be reasonable for your customers, what you’d expect to see as a consumer and go with that.
• Guarantee some of the prizes – put aside some of the budget to ensure you have winners.
• Use the other part of the budget to cover additional prizes and have ‘winning opportunities’. This will allow for the budget to go further and the promotion be as exciting as you’d like it to be!
• Mop Up – have a prize draw after the close of the promotion to compensate for late entries and entrants who’ve entered during the promotion and not won.
• Limit the number of winning individuals – so that the same people don’t get all the prizes and it’s fair for everyone.
• Don’t scrimp! The promotional website shouldn’t cost more than the promotional prizes! If it does, you probably need to look at it again.
• Be upfront. If you’re clear about the prizes and the odds, the choice for consumers is easy – buy and take part or don’t. It’s not about misleading anyone, ever!
• Choose your words carefully. Transparency is key; ‘’to be won’’ isn’t the same as ‘’could be won’’. Make sure you’re using language that can’t be misunderstood.

Steve Berry is managing director of fixed fee and promotional risk management company EMIRAT.

The post Are Winning Moments losing out unfairly? 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.

Sarah Burns of Prizeology has some words of wisdom on how to run prize promotions campaigns on social media that comply with UK law and the CAP Code

I love social media. I love social media because it enriches what leisure time I have in oh so many ways, especially when it comes to watching skateboarding dogs; but also because it’s brilliant for prize promotions, which is what I fill my working days with.

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest – they all have their merits and indeed their quirks, but I like these platforms because, unless you don’t understand how the channel works and get the mechanic completely wrong, the audience is almost always engaged and responsive.

Also, because these are still new and evolving spaces, promoters can be innovative – although, of course, they can’t make up their own rules, because each platform has its own acceptable use policies and guidelines for promotions.

Facebook, for instance, insists prize draws must be run through an app within Facebook or a business page, not a personal profile, while Instagram says you mustn’t ask people to tag themselves in photos if they aren’t actually in the pic. A competition in which the most retweets wins breaches Twitter guidelines and you can’t permit multiple entries to a Pinterest promotion or ask entrants to re-pin a specific image.

If you don’t follow these platform guidelines for promotions your account or – much worse – your client’s account is at risk of being shut down. It goes without saying that I don’t want one of the primary ways in which my client engages with its customers to be blocked.

I see it as my responsibility because my company makes full use of our clients’ business logins to monitor their social media campaigns. We answer queries, review the stats and check the promotion is being seen. Facebook’s recent algorithm change now means giveaways, for instance, might not always appear organically in feeds and brands will need to pay to boost their posts in order to gain visibility, so that presents a new challenge.

In addition to these site-specific idiosyncrasies, online prize promotions must abide by the regulations and laws of the land. Like all non-broadcast promotional marketing in the UK, social media prize draws are regulated by the CAP Code (the self-regulatory code which governs advertising and marketing in the UK), so they must have clear terms and conditions. These can be abridged – Twitter is still a tight squeeze although it’s slightly easier now there are 280 characters to play with – but the full and frank version should never be more than a single click away. If your promotion is global, take care, because different countries have different rules and what’s legal here isn’t necessarily legal elsewhere.

Whatever platform you use, you have to be able to pull all the entry data if you’re asked for it and prove that your prizes have been awarded fairly, so you need an app or program for doing this. On platforms like Twitter and Instagram, as well as asking entrants to use a specific hashtag, get them to tag your brand, as this helps you sort people who have actively entered your prize draw from those who have coincidentally used the same hashtag.

You also need a verification process to ensure entrants are who they claim to be, own the content they’ve entered and haven’t broken any other terms and conditions.

If you rely on notifying your winners by naming them in a Facebook post or tagging them on Instagram, you can’t guarantee they’ll see that post or, if they do, it might be months later, by which time you’ll have given the prize to someone else. People really do set up fake accounts simply to claim prizes, so always contact winners privately. On Twitter, for example, this may mean asking them to follow you so you can direct-message them.

Best practice on social media means running effective but compliant promotions. I would be mortified if a consumer complained to the ASA about a promotion I had run. But more than that, non-compliance, including by social media influencers who fail to make the correct disclosures of any commercial relationship with the brands they are promoting, undermines consumer trust and damages the promotional marketing industry as a whole, so following platform guidelines and adhering to the law benefits us all.

I am out to spread the love, because although I do love social media, I also love compliance too – and I don’t care who knows it!

Sarah Burns is Founder of Prizeology, a consultancy specialising in the management and implementation of all aspects of prize promotions, on both strategic and tactical levels. Prizeology is one of the Headline Sponsors of Connect 2018, the IPM’s Members Networking Event which is taking place on Wednesday 31st January. For more information about Connect 2018, see the IPM website.

The post Top tips for running compliant promotions on social media 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.

Tough new rules banning ads and promotions for food and drinks high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) from appearing in children’s non-broadcast media come into effect on Saturday 1 July.

The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), the body which writes the CAP Code – the rules which marketers in the UK are required to follow, under the country’s highly-regarded self-regulatory system for advertising and marketing – has made the changes to bring the rules covering non-broadcast media (which include the vast majority of promotional campaigns) into line with the rules covering broadcast (TV and radio).

Laura Kelly, Regulatory Adviser at the Institute of Promotional Marketing (IPM), says: “The CAP Code changes affect the way we promote HFSS (high fat, salt or sugar) products to children and families. These changes are a result of industry-wide consultation and represent a significant shift in the way responsible promoters want to market their brands. Agencies need to understand the impacts on campaign planning and make sure they take into account the changes when considering campaigns around HFSS brands. We are ready to advise brands and agencies that plan to use promotional campaigns which are likely to be seen by large number of under-16s on how the rules affect them.”

The IPM is a stakeholder in CAP and is represented on the CAP Committee. It has been closely involved in the process of drafting the latest changes to the CAP Code.

The changes will apply to media targeted at under-16s and will mean a major reduction in the number of ads children see for HFSS products, according to CAP. Where media targets under-12s, then there are even stricter rules which must be followed.

The IPM’s Laura Kelly adds that the new rules are complex and promoters must make sure they understand them. She has written a blog post for the IPM’s website highlighting some of the main issues and also providing links to advice from CAP and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the body which investigates complaints about marketing in the UK, on the new rules.

Particular areas of concern exist around brands where more than half the products count as HFSS (which under the new rules mean even non-HFSS products are subject to the same restrictions) and on-pack and in-store promotions.

HFSS products can still use on-pack and in-store promotions, but any promotional activity must not then appear in broadcast or non-broadcast media advertising.

While the new rules impose new curbs on how HFSS products may be marketed to under-12s, they also relax the rules for products which can be classified as healthy.

So while ads and promotional marketing for HFSS products will not be allowed to use promotions, licensed characters and celebrities popular with children, marketers will now be able to use these techniques to better promote healthier options.

Carey Trevill, Managing Director of the IPM, is the organisation’s representative on the CAP Committee. She comments: “Government has rightly addressed the issue of obesity in this country, asking the marketing community to step up to the plate over the way we self-regulate. The consultation with the advertising and marketing community proactively set in motion the changes we see in the CAP Code now and address how we promote to children and their families. With both CAP and BCAP Members and the wider industry collaborating, consumers and shoppers will see a healthier approach to the way HFSS brands approach campaigns through the new rules.”

Trevill adds: “The industry and the IPM have been communicating this change for some months now and of course we want to ensure our Members are able to translate the new rules to their campaigns without encountering issues. We welcome the changes and look forward to seeing the resulting campaigns that embrace the new ways of working.”

The new rules were created following a full public consultation last year by CAP, and reflect restrictions already in place on TV. The new rules apply to children’s non-broadcast media (including print, posters, cinema, online and in social media). Crucially, ads for HFSS products will no longer be allowed to appear around TV-like content online, such as video-sharing platforms, if it is directed at children.
The new rules come in response to changing media habits amongst young people, with research showing that youngsters aged 5-15 are spending around 15 hours each week online – overtaking time spent watching a TV set. They also respond to wider concerns in society about the public health challenges surrounding childhood obesity and what part the advertising industry can play in helping to change our children’s relationship with less healthy foods.

In summary, the new rules state:

• 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.
• If the content targets under-12s, 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.

CAP recognises the multiple and complex factors, beyond advertising, that can be instrumental in childhood obesity; including parental influence, sedentary lifestyles and education.  While the evidence shows that advertising has a modest effect on children’s food preferences, CAP believes the new ad restrictions will still have a positive impact in reducing harm to children.

Chairman of CAP, James Best said: “The tougher new advertising food rules are a significant and positive change designed to help protect the health and wellbeing of children. These measures demonstrate the advertising industry’s continuing commitment to putting the protection of children at the heart of its work. The new rules will alter the nature and balance of food advertising seen by children and play a meaningful part in helping change their relationship with less healthy foods.”

The post UK self-regulatory system tightens rules on HFSS ads and promotions to kids 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.

Laura Kelly of the IPM’s Legal Advisory Service highlights some changes to the rules on putting prices in marketing communications

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute recently released the new Guidance for Traders on Pricing Practices. It replaces the 2010 BIS Pricing Practices Guide, long used by both advertisers and regulators to help establish best practice in line with consumer protection laws. But exactly how might this change impact promotional marketing?

The first point to note is that the consumer protection laws have not changed; the guidance has been updated but the principles behind it remain the same, so it’s unlikely you will need to significantly change your current practices.  Remember the guidance is not legally mandatory but will be considered by regulators where appropriate.

The guidance provides common sense advice with practical examples, and the new document is arguably more user friendly. It breaks scenarios down into practices that are less likely or more likely to comply, rather than giving definitive rules or timespans. There are two key changes that most commenters have picked up on that are relevant to our field.

One of these is that the so called “28-day rule” has been removed. The BIS PPG stated that a period of 28 consecutive days within the previous 6 months would be deemed reasonable in terms of the least amount of time a product would need to be sold at a higher price before it could be reduced and genuinely claimed to be discounted. Some have suggested this was used to artificially inflate prices; the ASA had notably already moved away from this position in recent years, focusing on overall pricing history rather than specific figures. It is therefore best to see this as a clarification of current principles rather than a change in position.

Some commentators have noted the focus on reference pricing and advised wariness when using RRPs. The new guidance contains a link to CAP guidance on the subject, which notes that even if the RRP has been given to you by the manufacturer, if you can’t demonstrate that it is actually sold at that price it’s likely to be considered misleading. Again, while some may be surprised to discover this information it has been a long-held principle.

So, if you’re already following best practice you shouldn’t need to make any changes. If any of the above is news to you however, now’s the time to brush up!

The ASA will continue using precedent to make rulings, but it’s worth keeping an eye on future cases to see whether they change direction at all. I’ll mention any significant rulings in my Legal Scoop which you can subscribe to on the IPM website, and of course they’re likely to come up as case studies in future IPM Legal Briefings.

If you’re an IPM member and have any questions you can contact Laura at laurak@theipm.org.uk

The post Guidance on Pricing Practices 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.