With the introduction of new gender stereotyping rules in 2019, regulators attempted to reflect societal changes taking place in the UK. We are hosting a webinar that will focus on how these rules have been interpreted and how the industry can respond to stay compliant.

We’re excited to be joined by Jessica Tye, Operations Manager in Investigations at the ASA who was part of the project team which conducted a major review into gender stereotyping in advertising resulting in the rules currently in force.

Join us at 12 pm on August 11th for what will be a very informative webinar.

Click here to register: https://lnkd.in/dMvjgt4

The post IPM Webinar: Gender Stereotyping Regulations Update appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

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.

Jim Conning of Royal Mail Data Services (RMDS) provides some practical advice for how to use customer data in promotions, based on new research

Accurate, comprehensive data on customers and prospects is the essential bedrock of successful promotional marketing campaigns. But as it becomes more vital to marketers, new challenges, such as ensuring compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), are growing in importance, according to a new study from Royal Mail Data Services.

Based on research with UK brands and marketing agencies, the survey highlights four trends:

GDPR compliance is marketers’ number one concern

Nearly three in 10 (29%) of respondents listed GDPR compliance as their biggest worry, up from just 12% in the 2016 study. Breaking this down, a quarter (25%) of brands saw GDPR compliance as their greatest challenge, rising to 35% among agencies.

The study drilled down to ask brands and agencies how confident they were that their internally held customer data was GDPR compliant. The positive news is that 78% of all marketers were either “very” or “reasonably” confident that it complied with the new regulation – although worryingly, 11% were not confident, including 2% who did not know if they were compliant or not.

The barriers to using marketing data effectively

Marketers are facing churn rates that see nearly one in five (19%) customers leaving every year. Consequently, finding and acquiring replacements remained the number-one objective for marketers, with 42% citing it as their biggest challenge. However, this has fallen from 52% in 2016. Interestingly “analysing customer data”, a new option for 2017, has emerged as the top concern for just under a quarter of respondents (24%). Clearly, boosting analytics capabilities is a fast-emerging priority for brands and agencies alike.

Companies also seem to be giving up on the idea of reactivating dormant customers, rather than searching for new ones. In 2014 nearly one-quarter (24%) said this was their number-one marketing priority, but by 2017 the figure had dropped to just 6%. This could be linked to worries about poor-quality customer data or whether dormant customer data is GDPR compliant and can be used in marketing to this group.

Turning data into successful campaigns

How can marketers effectively use the huge amount of data they now hold? What is holding them back?

When asked where the gaps were that need filling, the results mirrored overall marketing challenges. The same number of respondents (24%) pointed to analysing customer data as their biggest issue, a figure that rose to 28% within brands. This demonstrates a clear need for greater analytics skills and capabilities, particularly for brands.

Perhaps reflecting that they already had analytics skills, the biggest area for improvement that agencies flagged (29%) was access to better-quality customer data. Brands also struggle to embed data cultures within their businesses. More than one in five (21%) said that a having a better understanding across the organisation of the importance of good-quality customer data would improve business performance.

When it comes to driving successful campaigns in terms of response and conversion rates, marketers agree it is all about data and how you use it. On a scale of one to five, the four top success factors reported were quality of contact data (4.6), segmentation and targeting (4.6), personalised content (4.4) and timing (4.3). In comparison, creative design scored just 4.0 out of 5. These top-four factors all rely on good-quality data and analytics in some way, and marketers reported that they had all increased in importance dramatically since last year.

Ensuring better data quality

Poor-quality customer data was cited as their biggest challenge by nearly one in five (18%) marketers. The main drivers of poor-quality data were basic errors – specifically out-of-date information and incomplete data. This was above factors such as duplicate data, spelling mistakes and data in incorrect fields.

Marketers understand that data is a living entity and quickly becomes out of date. This is leading to them focus on more formal, regular data cleansing – 22% do this daily or continuously. However, one-third (33%) still have no formal processes in place to clean customer contact data, although this has dropped from 37% in 2016. This means a sizeable minority are putting themselves at risk of data-quality issues – and potential GDPR investigations over non-compliance.

Poor-quality data hits business performance – marketers estimate that the average cost of poor-quality customer data is 6% of annual revenue. For major brands this is measured in millions of pounds – and excludes any potential fines for GDPR non-compliance, which can be as much as 4% of global turnover.

Data is the lifeblood of promotional marketing campaigns – having the best ideas in the world mean nothing if you can’t reach the right customers and prospects. However, as the Royal Mail Data Services research has found, marketers face key challenges around GDPR compliance, analytics, and quality that they need to overcome if they are to deliver successful campaigns that boost the bottom line.

A full copy of the report, “The use and management of customer data”, can be downloaded from the Royal Mail Data Services website.

Jim Conning is Managing Director of Royal Mail Data Services (RMDS), which is the specialist data business of Royal Mail Group. It provides organisations with customer contact and address data, data-quality, addressing and marketing services. It is committed to developing new ways for customers to look up, capture, validate and use contact and address data more effectively. Royal Mail Data Services helps organisations improve customer data quality, marketing performance and customer engagement.

The post Customer data and promotional marketing – four areas to focus on 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.

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.

Karen Bradley, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, has told the UK’s advertising and marketing communications professionals that the current Government considers its work to be one of the UK’s “major success stories” and also “vital for the success of the UK.” Speaking at the Advertising Association’s LEAD 2017 conference on January 26th 2017, she reassured her audience that advertising and marketing has the full support of the Government and encouraged the industry to make its voice heard in the process of planning Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Bradley went on: “I want to be clear that the government has never seen you as peripheral. Our aim is to forge new relationships while remaining open to international talent. But I’m conscious that UK advertising feels that certain aspects of EU wide co-operation have been helpful but also that certain legislation is harmful. I want to hear from you on the opportunities and limitations of success as we approach our negotiations. And as we engage in negotiations with the EU, the advertising industry can help us make the case by providing us with data and knowledge.”

Carey Trevill, Managing Director of the Institute of Promotional Marketing, was in the audience. She says: “We heard a speech designed to calm and support the marketers in the room. Bradley spelt out clearly the benefits of British advertising and the fact that the special position we hold as ‘best in the world’ positions the U.K. advertising and marketing industry as critical to a successful Brexit.”

According to the latest figures from the influential AA/WARC Advertising Expenditure survey, marketing spend grew 4.2% in the third quarter of 2016, following the UK’s vote to leave the EU. Recent research by advertising think tank Credos and consultants Deloitte shows that advertising contributed £120.4 billion to GDP in 2015, and supports over 550,000 jobs.

The Advertising Association used LEAD 2017 – which targets senior leadership in advertising and marketing agencies, media owners, brand owners and related sectors – as a platform to outline the priorities for the UK’s advertising and marketing industry for Brexit:

• Safeguard the UK’s competitive position as an important global and European hub for advertising and media businesses.
• Establish a workable and effective EU and global immigration policy to help UK advertising to continue to attract global talent, and address the skills shortage through education policy.
• Negotiate the UK’s position on various media and advertising-related EU rules and ensure as much market access as possible, through equivalence in UK law.
• Adopt a non-interventionist domestic regulatory approach to the advertising industry to provide market certainty and advertiser confidence and support its advertising self-regulation system through the ASA.
• In the longer term, consider what EU rules constitute red tape to be lifted after the UK has left the EU.

Stephen Woodford, Chief Executive Officer of the Advertising Association, comments: “Ad spend serves not just as an established bellwether for the wider economy, but is a driver of jobs and GDP growth, so negotiating the best possible terms for UK advertising should be a priority as Government engineers our exit from the EU.”

The IPM’s Trevill agrees. “With so much change hitting the world – let alone the industry – week after week, being central to the conversation with government is crucial.”

LEAD 2017 also focused attention on the London-centric nature of the UK advertising and marketing industry, with many speakers suggesting that marketers need to look beyond London to understand the wider business and, more importantly, the consumer view. Trevill comments: “The message was clear – the communications industry needs to burst the London-centric bubble we’ve been operating in for too long and engage with people across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I’d argue that the IPM is already doing that, with so many of our key members based in other regions of the country.”

As part of its commitment to engaging with its members outside London, the IPM will be attending the Prolific North Live Expo on February 15^th and 16^th at EventCity Manchester. The Expo is free to attend and the IPM is inviting members and non-members alike to drop by its stand (105). If you want to make an appointment, then please do so by email to Carey.trevill@theipm.org.uk.

The post LEAD 2017: Marketing vital for UK, but must look beyond London appeared first on IPM Bitesize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a reminder:

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

Creating a future for responsible promotion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Holmes of Limelight looks at some of the challenges associated with crowdsourcing competitions and why marketers need to think ahead when planning their campaigns.

The Natural Environment Research Council’s decision to run a competition asking the British public to name its new polar research vessel has gained the organisation international news coverage due to how it has highlighted both the British sense of humour and the potential pitfalls of crowdsourcing.

The name leading the poll, in case you’ve spent the last two weeks stuck at the South Pole, is Boaty McBoatface, a name suggested in jest by former BBC presenter James Hand (who has since apologised).

It has, of course, launched numerous memes, and joins a list of serious causes looking to crowdsource ideas from the people but being somewhat underwhelmed by sarcastic results see also some of the submissions for New Zealand’s new flag.

Although the way the poll has been hijacked by humourists certainly raises a smile, it also highlights some of the PR and communications challenges around crowdsourced competitions. Asking the global internet community is a brave choice. The New Zealand flag, for example, met a backlash from the public when the final designs didn’t include some of the funnier and more popular submissions.

It was recently announced that the nation will be sticking with its long established existing flag design, promoting speculation about the amount of time and money spent on a pointless search.

Potential brand damage and marketing spend aside, businesses also need to understand that when running such a public vote, they are, under the UK’s CAP Code at least, likely to be expected to follow through on any prizes and incentives offered.

While the NERC’s PR person has gone on the record as being thrilled with the national interest in their new vessel’s name, the final name will only be selected, from the competition suggestions received, by the organisation itself – which is completely in line with competition rules. This last point, when it comes to PR and marketing, is absolutely key.

Many creative industries like PR thrive on the Big Idea. The concept is great – let’s go with it! It makes for exciting and dynamic disciplines. As the lines between marketing channels blur and social media has come to dominate, using digital media for competitions and offers has become part and parcel of many marketing and communications campaigns.

Few marketers, however, may be aware of the small print and legal implications when pursuing these quick turnaround Twitter competitions and giveaways, in the rush to keep pace and engage.

Simply put, any brand using prize draws or competitions as part of a marketing campaign, whether online or through traditional channels, is bound by the CAP Code to make sure the competition is conducted thoroughly above board. This should be a consideration for any comms business recommending quick giveaways and activating those ideas for clients.

It’s not enough to assume that the client will have this taken care of. PR, marketing and advertising are fast-moving businesses, constantly changing, evolving, and adapting to new communications methods as they emerge. In this drive to embrace new channels as audiences migrate to them, it does still pay to bring with you long established techniques and rules, and acknowledging what the newer disciplines don’t perhaps know – the unknown unknowns.

Boaty McBoatface has done well from an awareness perspective, and it’s not as if the NERC was offering the boat itself as a prize.

But not only do savvy modern marketers need to think ahead and consider whether or not that great big idea could also make for a great, big, sarcastic meme, they also need to ensure that with any consumer-facing offer all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed in the small print. Assuming that the client or another marketing agency already has it in hand could prove a costly mistake, so it’s always best to ask to see the terms and conditions and check through them thoroughly.

Competitions and prize draws are fraught with complications at the best of times; throwing them open to the world via social media requires even stricter terms and conditions than using more traditional channels.

James Holmes is Managing Director at Limelight, a B2B PR and communication agency that exists to give talented and ambitious people and businesses the recognition they deserve. Connect with them via @LimelightPR.

The post Boaty McBoatface: crowdsourcing’s unknown unknowns appeared first on IPM Bitesize.