The much trailed news that the ASA's remit wiill now (from 1 March 2011) include online communications should be welcomed by the industry and consumers alike. It's been some time coming, but looks sensible, workable and financially viable - and with the advertising/search networks on board, has teeth as well. 10 points to Google for getting behind it.

The extension of the ASA's remit means that all commercial communications, irrespective of channel, need to be legal, decent, honest and truthful. In practice it means that virtually every corporate or branded piece of social media activity (e.g. Facebook page or Twitter feed) has to abide by the same codes of conduct as every piece of above the line comms the organisation puts out.

Advertisements and other marketing communications by or from companies, organisations or sole traders on their own websites, or in other non-paid-for space online under their control, that are directly connected with the supply or transfer of goods, services, opportunities and gifts, or which consist of direct solicitations of donations as part of their own fund-raising activities.

Now I'm a great believer in self-regulation (Disclaimer - I used to be Head of Comms at the ASA and remember wrestling with the implications of online advertising 10 years (!!) ago when launching a new version of the Codes), and a great believer in the ASA as an effective regulator. And most of the reason this is going to work is that all online communications (more so than above the line) relies on enlightened self-interest and transparency to work effectively. But with online, you're operating under a permanent microscope, where every mis-deed can be speedily amplified, causing significant reputational damage in the process.

Put simply, if you tell porkies on behalf of a brand, you'll get found out, and the news will spread quickly. You'll get hounded online, and rightly so. And if you don't stop it, the ASA (and Google) can pull your display advertising, and/or position ads saying you've been telling porkies exactly above yours in search results. A fine sanction (if I've understood it correctly).

Of course, there will be teething problems. The boundary between what's exempt and what's not (journalism and 'material related to causes and ideas' are out of scope) will be picked over in the months to come. There will also be much discussion about user generated communications solicited and then hosted by brands or on brand pages based on the definitions published by CAP (the Committee of Advertising Practice - the industry body which writes the rules)

User-generated content (UGC) is content created by private individuals. In establishing whether UGC should be regarded as a marketing communication, and consequently fall within the remit of advertising self-regulation, the primary and preliminary areas of enquiry to be considered are:
• Did the website owner originally solicit the submission of UGC from private individuals, then adopt and
incorporate it within their own marketing communications?
• Did a private individual provide the website owner, on an unsolicited basis, with material which the website owner subsequently adopted and incorporated within their own marketing communications?
3.10. If the answer to either question is yes, (and of course that the content of the material and the form in which it is re-used by the marketer does itself constitute an advertisement or marketing communication by the marketer) then prima facie the UGC under consideration will be regarded as a marketing communication.

Nevertheless, this has got to be good news all round for online comms.

But having said all of that - for most of us working in this space it should mean no change whatsoever. Which is the bit I like best.

Share