Posts Tagged ‘marketing’
Friday, March 2nd, 2012
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned Sofa King’s regional press ad which included the slogan “The Sofa King – Where the Prices are Sofa King Low!” after receiving three complaints.
The ASA held the slogan could be “interpreted as derivative of a particular swear word which consumer research had found to be a word so likely to offend that it should not be used in ads at all, even when it was relevant to the name of a product”. It concluded that it was likely to cause “serious or widespread offence” and that the ad breached the CAP Code.
The Sofa King have defended their use of the slogan stating that they have not received any complaints directly. The general online opinion appears to be that it’s all just a bit of tongue in cheek fun. However, the slogan does suggest a serious swear word so that once a formal complaint was made to the ASA, it had little choice but to ban the slogan.
Posted by Sara McNeill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property matters, including licensing, franchise, collaboration and development arrangements and IP audits and strategy; experienced in drafting and advising on commercial agreements.
Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, cap code, Intellectual Property, ip, marketing, Sara Mcneill, sofa king
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Intellectual Property | No Comments »
Monday, February 14th, 2011
Product placement logo
Just before Christmas 2010 Ofcom confirmed that as of 28 February 2011, product placement will be permitted in UK TV programmes. Unlike our more relaxed US cousins, as part of the new rules a logo must appear for 3 seconds at the start, the end, and after any advertising breaks within programmes containing product placement.
Ofcom today revealed what that logo will look like. The monochrome double P will be used to signal to viewers that the programme they are about to see contains product placement.
The use of the logo is intended to combat “surreptitious” advertising. In practice this cautious approach may be an added bonus for advertisers who will get two bites at the cherry. As well as being able to place products within programmes, advertisers have the added benefit that broadcasters must tell the viewer that their product is there, drawing the viewer’s attention to what they may otherwise not have noticed at all.
Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.
Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, Brands, marketing, ofcom, product placement
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Regulatory | No Comments »
Friday, January 14th, 2011
With only three months to go before the Bribery Act 2010 comes into force in April the Government has decided that it wants the Act to be reviewed. Unfortunately for UK businesses this does not mean that they can breathe a sigh of relief as an official from the SFO has already said that the review will be ‘limited’, despite headlines in the press.
The review follows escalating fears that the Act is so burdensome it could affect UK economic growth, and that UK business chiefs could end up in court after inadvertently committing an offence with a potential maximum sentence of 10 years.
However the Government needs to be cautious. Watering down the Act now would ruin the reputation the UK has earned itself, as the least corrupt country in the world, by implementing the Act in the first place. The Government should concentrate on issuing coherent, useful guidance for companies and ensuring that authorities deal with potential breaches of the Act in a sensible and proportionate way.
Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.
Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, Brands, bribery, competition, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Competition, Manufacturing | No Comments »
Friday, December 17th, 2010
The ASA has recently reminded us that Santa Claus most definitely does not exist.
Or rather, as those keen eyed readers will notice from the title, that a Santa clause does not exist, as part of the Advertising Codes. The ASA has reported that every year at the time of glad tidings, mince pies, carols, and general merriment it receives a sack full of complaints from angry parents. For example, last year it received 40 complaints against an Asda TV advert depicting parents buying and hiding presents. Why would they do this when Santa will be bringing them on Christmas Eve …… the children might ask?
The ASA did not investigate. Nevertheless, it accepts that the Codes place a particular emphasis on protecting children from harm and distress.
Accordingly this year, to save us from tears, the ASA had reminded advertisers to ‘tread carefully’ when putting their Christmas adverts together.
Posted by Fiona Carter, who specialises in commercial regulation, compliance advice and investigations; is head of Browne Jacobson’s advertising and marketing team and food and drink group.
Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Thursday, December 9th, 2010
An ad campaign by Carling has been given the ASA’s seal of approval.
Heineken UK challenged whether the claims “NEW TASTE LOCK CAN” and “Scientifically proven to lock in great taste” were misleading as they could not be substantiated. However, Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (MCBC) answered the challenge by providing evidence regarding the technology that made the cans new and details of extensive tests conducted that showed the maximum iron content found in the new cans compared to the old cans had reduced, and was at or below the level at which trained in-house taste testers could identify a metallic taste.
MCBC understand the importance of ensuring that before any claims are made it is imperative that statistically significant evidence is gathered, just in case you are presented with a challenge. Much to Heineken’s dismay, MCBC will now get better press from this ad campaign than they would have done had the challenge not been made in the first place !
Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.
Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, Brands, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Wednesday, November 24th, 2010
The Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, has reignited considerations to force tobacco companies to sell their products in standard packaging, despite Conservative opposition to similar plans by Labour.
Mr Lansley believes ‘glitzy’ packets attracts young people to smoke, and has said ‘the evidence is clear that packaging helps recruit smokers so it makes sense to have less attractive packaging’. He wants to cut the ‘vast’ smoking related cost to the NHS and the economy, and instead use this money to ‘educate our children and treat cancer’.
Though the ban has been welcomed by doctors and anti-smoking bodies, the tobacco industry has already indicated it will totally reject the idea of plain packets. This is an unsurprising response from an industry already effectively stripped of its marketing arsenal, now facing a Government intending to ban companies from using their intellectual property rights.
Dmitrije Sirovica
0115 976 6238
dsirovica@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, marketing, tobacco advertising
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Thursday, November 11th, 2010
The ASA has banned a cinema commercial for Nivea Anti Wrinkle cream showing a woman moisturising her face as a voice proclaims “…it’s no surprise that 37% of women feel more attractive now than they did ten years ago”.
The ASA agreed with a viewer’s complaint that the ad does not make it clear whether the 37% was referring to women in general or just those who had used the cream.
In support of the claim, Nivea had carried out a survey on over 12,000 subscribers to its e-mail newsletter. The problem was that the survey sample was too general, as the ASA could not be certain that they were all users of the Nivea product. In addition, the questions asked were not specific to the eventual claim made in the ad but were instead general attitudes questions.
Companies should take heed; it is much easier to withstand challenge if you have a smaller sample of good quality, directly applicable evidence to substantiate your claim.
Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.
Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, marketing, Nivea
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) this week ruled that an ad for Harpic Power Plus misleadingly implied that it was more effective than bleach at killing germs.
The TV ad showed a woman scrubbing a toilet with bleach and then showed limescale under the toilet seat rim and a close up of germs on it.
The voiceover makes various claims, including that “Harpic Power Plus…is five times better than bleach at powering through limescale…”
Unilever were the complainant. It will come as no surprise that one of Unilever’s brands is Domestos: a domestic bleach product. Unilever has become a pro in using the ASA as an effective tool to challenge comparative advertisements. They clearly recognise that a well drafted complaint to the ASA, which highlights breaches of relevant legislation and codes of conduct, can be a more effective (and less costly) tool than engaging in potentially lengthy litigation.
Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.
Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, Harpic, marketing, Unilever
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 27th, 2010
Only last month did we tweet that Antonio Federici had been chastised by the ASA for making a mockery of the Catholic religion.
Federici were told not to run their advert, which depicted a heavily pregnant woman, dressed as a nun, holding a tub of ice cream ad, again. In response, Federici said that they would be unveiling a new advert, which would continue the theme, to coincide with the Pope’s visit to the UK.
Well, they did, and guess what; it has fallen foul of the advertising code of conduct yet again. This advert shows two men dressed as priests about to kiss, with the text ‘we believe in salivation’.
Call me suspicious, but something tells me that Federici did not fall foul of the code accidentally. It looks like the ASA and its adverse rulings are being exploited by the ice-cream maker’s marketing team to support the brand’s slightly risqué image.
Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.
Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, Antonio Federici, Brands, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Friday, October 15th, 2010
The ASA has upheld yet another complaint against Ryanair’s pricing claims. Easyjet complained that Ryanair could not substantiate the claim ‘Cheapest way to the Sun‘, and did not make the basis of the implied comparison clear. The ad encouraged consumers to ‘Book now for Summer 2010′.
The ASA upheld both complaints. Ryanair’s evidence showed they sometimes offered cheaper flights than their nearest competitor, but did not show that they were cheaper for the whole of Summer 2010. Ryanair have been told not to repeat the ad in its current form.
On the one hand, this is an example of why certain advertisers feel able to ignore the threat of an adverse ASA ruling – because by the time this adjudication was made, ‘Summer 2010′ was long gone. On the other hand, will the reporting of rulings such as this, combined with protests such as ‘ihateryanair.org,’ undermine the credibility of Ryanair’s low-cost business model for Summer 2011?
Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.
Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, Brands, marketing, Ryanair
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010
The European Commission has referred the UK to the European Union’s Court of Justice for having insufficient laws on internet privacy and for failing to comply with EU rules, specifically the ePrivacy Directive and the Data Protection Directive which state that a person’s consent to interception of their communications must be a ‘freely given, specific and informed indication of a person’s wishes,’ rather than a default presumption.
It follows an investigation in 2009 by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office after BT collaborated with targeting company Phorm to collect online browsing data that was later used to select ads for delivery to individual computers. The investigation concluded that no laws had been broken by BT or Phorm.
Whilst some marketers, advertisers and brand owners will see this latest development as another blow to their potential creativity others will regard it as an opportunity to gain greater customer respect and loyalty by being seen to be open and transparent about their advertising techniques.
Posted by Nina Best, who specialises in regulatory matters; entertainment licensing; advertising and marketing law; advice and representation on infringement of Food Safety Manufacturing Product Regulations.
Nina Best
0115 976 6529
nbest@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, Brands, Data Protection, internet privacy, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 15th, 2010
On Wednesday the ASA ruled that an advert for Antonio Federici ice cream was offensive to Catholics. The advert depicted a heavily pregnant woman, dressed as a nun, holding a tub of ice cream. The advert’s text said “Immaculately Conceived….”
Federici said that their advert was a form of art and self-expression. They felt that advertising should be challenging and often iconoclastic. However the ASA said that the use of the image was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics, and using it in a light hearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence.
In response, Federici have stated that they will be unveiling a new advert, which continues this theme, to coincide with the Pope’s visit to the UK.
This approach is similar to ambush marketing, and at the very least, contradicts the spirit of the ASA’s ruling. Is this another example of an adverse ASA ruling providing useful publicity for a brand?
Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.
Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, Brands, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, September 1st, 2010
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today announced that it will be extending its remit to cover marketing communications which appear on businesses’ own websites. Previously, the ASA’s online coverage only extended to paid-for adverts. The change will come into force on 1 March 2011.
This is a significant change, as it brings a large amount of new material into the ASA’s territory. The ASA will now have the power to, for instance, examine claims made about your product on your website, and pronounce that they are misleading, or socially irresponsible. The ASA would then require that such claims not be made again. Businesses which operate primarily online through their own website could find themselves subject to ASA investigation for the first time.
An adverse ASA adjudication can produce a great deal of negative publicity, and in addition the ASA have decided that they may in future place their own advertisements online, to be found by search engines, to name and shame advertisers who refuse to comply with their rulings. For this reason your competitors may look to instigate a complaint if they feel there is misleading information on your website. Businesses should take the opportunity now to submit their website’s content for review, to avoid the risk of a complaint.
Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.
Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, Brands, marketing, online advertising
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | 2 Comments »
Friday, August 27th, 2010
On Friday it was reported that the US FTC has ruled against a firm whose employees, posing as ordinary consumers, posted favourable reviews of its own clients’ iPhone applications. This type of marketing activity is known as “astroturfing.” The firm must now remove all the reviews.
In the UK, astroturfing is illegal as it is “blacklisted” by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. If degrading reviews of competitors’ products are also posted, this could breach the Comparative Advertising Directive, and constitute malicious falsehood, for which damages could be claimed.
The precise extent of astroturfing online is unknown – though there are certain ways to detect if a review is genuine or fake. But in a world where the casual consumer relies heavily on reviews and averaged star-ratings (be it on Amazon, TripAdvisor or iTunes), astroturfing can clearly impact on sales if left unchecked.
Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.
Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, astroturfing, Brands, Consumer protection, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Friday, August 27th, 2010
The new CAP and BCAP Codes come into effect on 1 September 2010.
Changes include:
- an over-arching “social responsibility” rule for broadcast adverts
- clearer guidance for both broadcast and non-broadcast on what the ASA will consider are unfairly exaggerated “green” claims
- rules preventing marketers from collecting data from children under 12 and from exploiting the trust that young persons place in parents, teachers or other persons
- clarification on the acceptable use of the word ‘free’
- a requirement that prize promotions be clear about which prizes are available to win and those that are guaranteed to be won
- new sector-specific rules for charities, food and drink, adult products, debt advisers and lotteries
Advertisers should review their current marketing projects against the updated Codes, so that they do not get caught out by the changes – and so they do not miss out on any new opportunities now available.
Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.
Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, advertising standards authority, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Friday, July 9th, 2010
On Monday, the coalition government asked its marketing departments to plan for spending cuts of up to 40% to their advertising budgets.
Yesterday, the health secretary, Andrew Lansley gave an insight into how the government sees that businesses can help keep important marketing campaigns alive.
Lansley explained that beer companies, confectionary firms and crisp-makers will be asked to fund the government’s Change4Life campaign; an advertising campaign that aims to persuade people to switch to a healthier lifestyle. In return, Lansley has promised that these companies will not face new legislation that was to outlaw excessively fatty, sugary and salty food.
Whilst this is an innovative way of keeping an important government campaign alive, the public don t always realise that the majority of restrictions on food are imposed by mandatory implementation of European Regulations.
Is the government indulging in soft sell – or is this a promise Lansley can keep?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
find out more about us
Tags: advertising, government, marketing
Posted in Advertising & Marketing | 1 Comment »
Saturday, June 12th, 2010
Last week we posted that Mars and The FA were considering legal action against Nestlé .
This week a study by Nielsen has revealed that Nestle are not the only ones taking advantage of “ambush marketing” during the lead up to the World Cup. The likes of Nike and Carlsberg appear to got the upper hand over their bitter rivals but its not all bad news. Nielsen also found that FIFA partner Coca-Cola was found to have had five times the level of mentions around the World Cup than Pepsi did.
With the raft of brands that are currently and will continue to engage in ambush marketing, is it time for sponsors to start taking advantage of their alignment to the World Cup by being more creative, since “owning” the tournament is clearly not enough?
Would money be better spent on savvy marketing strategies rather than on potentially fruitless attempts to try and go after arguably more creative (ambush) marketeers?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, ambush marketing, Brands, marketing, world cup
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | No Comments »
Monday, June 7th, 2010
Mars, the FA’s official sponsor, is considering taking legal action against Nestlé’s latest advertising campaign for Kit Kat for “passing themselves off” as being associated with the England football team. This is particularly interesting since Mars ran a very similar campaign 4 years ago.
With major sporting events, “ambush marketing” can be rife with advertisers other than official sponsors keen to piggyback on the popularity of the event without expressly associating themselves with it.
Although sporting associations often publish guidelines as to what references they will permit, which prohibitions are actually enforceable is a question of law. There is obviously a line which must not be crossed. However Nestle say they have taken advice, and feel that the campaign is permissible.
If the law doesn’t protect the rights which official sponsors have paid for, whats the point in paying ? – or maybe we are all “fair game” when it comes to making money for football?…
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, Brands, marketing, world cup
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands | 2 Comments »
Monday, April 12th, 2010
Two weeks ago, we reported on the uncensored reposting of live tweets on the Conservative’s “Cash Gordon” website. Now it seems that Twitter posts have put a Labour candidate into hot water.
Amongst other controversial posts, Stuart MacLennan reportedly described the elderly as “coffin dodgers”. He has now been dropped as the Labour nomination for the seat in Moray.
One interesting point is that the Labour Party have said that Mr MacLennan’s tweets were in fact posted a year ago, when Mr MacLennan was still a student. Nevertheless they are still available to be found and reported, and can still be used against him. As a side note, from a legal perspective, material posted online is “published” each time it is downloaded to view – not just when it is first posted. This means that potentially defamatory material (including material which has been “cached”) can be unearthed years after it is posted, and the maker of the statement can be sued. This rule is however currently under review, and may change soon.
Do you think this incident will make students more careful about what they post online, in case it is used against them in the future?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
Tags: Brands, marketing, media
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Public Sector | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010
On Tuesday it was reported that the Press Complaints Commission had made its first ever adjudication against a blog. The blog in question was Rod Liddle’s piece which stated that “the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.” A complaint was made about this particular comment to the PCC.
The Spectator was unable to provide evidence to substantiate this factual statement, and so the PCC upheld the complaint.
What was interesting about the decision was that the Spectator argued that blogging is a conversational medium, often provocative, in which readers were able to disagree with the writer by responding on the same page. The Commission recognised this argument, but stated that a publisher still had to be able to substantiate the factual statements it published, and could not rely merely on publication of critical reaction to the piece by members of the public.
Even online, the PCC requires the orthodox press to check their facts before publishing. But we live in a world of social media, internet rumours and the 24-hour news cycle. Is regulation a “gold standard” which ensures that consumers will continue to come to orthodox publishers for their news and comment?
Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, marketing, online advertising, press complaints
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Regulatory | No Comments »
