WebProNews

Tag: ASA

  • Nike Admonished For Wayne Rooney Twitter Ad Campaign

    If you are an athlete, actor, musician, etc. – just how far do you have to go to make it clear to your social media followers that a communication is serving as a sponsored advertisement?

    That’s the issue at the heart of a decision concerning England soccer star Wayne Rooney and Nike. The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) struck down Nike’s “Make it count” Twitter campaign after a tweet from Rooney and another soccer player failed to meet the guidelines for transparent ad practices.

    Below is the tweet in question. Rooney sent this out to over 4 million followers on January 1st. As you can see, the tweet includes an inspirational message along with the hashtag #makeitcount. The link takes you to a Nike product website.

    Fellow player Jack Wilshere posted a similar tweet near the same time that read,

    “In 2012, I will come back for my club — and be ready for my country. #makeitcount.gonike.me/Makeitcount”

    Wilshere has since deactivated his account.

    These tweets ran afoul of the ASA, whose job it is is to “keep UK ads legal, honest, and truthful,” according to their statement. They ruled that the tweets didn’t properly reference Nike and that Rooney and Wilshere’s followers could clearly mistake the tweet for one that wasn’t sponsored. Nike argued that the Nike url was enough and that people clearly associated Rooney with Nike anyways.

    “We considered the average Twitter user would follow a number of people on the site and they would receive a number of tweets throughout the day, which they may scroll through quickly,” said the ASA. They added that the rules specify that “marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such.”

    Or, as the Committee of Advertising Practice (code writers for the independent ASA) explains it:

    The ads that were the subject of today’s adjudication were tweets setting out their footballers’ resolutions for 2012. The footballers in question sent personal as well as advertiser-sponsored messages from their Twitter accounts. Nike pointed out that the tweets included the hashtag #makeitcount and the URL gonike.me/makeitcount, and argued both the individuals (Wayne Rooney and Jack Wilshere) and their clubs (Manchester United and Arsenal) were widely known to be sponsored by Nike.

    The ASA, however, noted the “Make it Count” campaign had launched around the same time that the tweets were sent, and considered that readers might not recognise “make it count” as a Nike marketing campaign. Even though the ads included links to a Nike website, and some readers might have inferred from that that the primary purpose of the messages was to promote Nike, the ASA considered that it would not be obvious to all readers that the whole tweet was a marketing communication. This is an important lesson: ads must be not just potentially identifiable as advertising but obviously advertising.

    They suggest that in the future, tweets could include #spon or #ad hashtags to make them obvious.

    Of course, social media advertising is a different animal than traditional media advertising and the lines are a bit blurrier. It seems that the thing that makes a Twitter or Facebook campaign so effective – how ads morph into the flow of everyday communications – is exactly why the ASA came down on Nike.

  • Mass Effect Ending Gets ASA Clearance

    Mass Effect Ending Gets ASA Clearance

    UK advertising regulator, The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), recently stated that they will not act on claims that Mass Effect 3 creators misled customers about the extent to which they could create their own ending. The actual advertising states “decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.” Fans were outraged when the outcome fell short of expectations.

    The ASA was alerted shortly after the games release, when many consumers claimed false advertising. After hearing evidence from Electronic Arts, the ASA decided the publisher did enough to satisfy the claims they made. The ASA released the following statement which was first published in CVG UK:

    “The ASA acknowledged the belief that players’ choices in the game did not influence the outcome to the extent claimed by EA. However, we considered that the three choices at the end of the game were thematically quite different, and that the availability and effectiveness of those choices would be directly determined by a player’s score, which was calculated with reference to previous performance in the game(s).

    “We also acknowledged that there appeared to be a large number of minor variations in the end stages of ME3, and that those were directly impacted by choices made by players earlier in the game(s).

    “Whilst we acknowledged that the advertiser had placed particular emphasis on the role that player choices would play in determining the outcome of the game, we considered that most consumers would realize there would be a finite number of possible outcomes within the game and, because we considered that the advertiser had shown that players’ previous choices and performance would impact on the ending of the game, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.”

    The ending to Mass Effect 3 caught the ire of the entire gaming public a few months ago. Bioware has since said that they will be releasing new DLC for the game that will include an alternate/extended ending for fans that were unhappy with the conclusion. The release date has not been given, but is expected this summer. So… soon.

    It remains to be seen if the USA’s FTC will have any comment on the now passé hatred of the trilogy’s conclusion. A free DLC is on the way to clear things up, but somehow I doubt this will placate some fans.

    [joystiq via CVG]

  • Misleading Groupon Ads Flagged by UK Watchdog

    Groupon has had a few ads flagged after some issues with the Advertising Standards Authority, an independent watchdog for ad standards in the UK. 

    The ads in question were found to be misleading, because they failed to make clear certain terms, such as the fact that one person had to pay full price for a meal to get a second one at a discounted price, or that another deal didn’t apply to weekends. One "misleadingly exaggerated" the savings it offered, according to the ASA. 

    "We told Groupon to ensure that all significant terms and conditions of promotions were made clear in future and that they did not exaggerate the extent of any savings that could be achieved," says the ASA. 

    Groupon’s response to complaints about the ads, according to the ASA:

    ASA Talks Groupon AdsGroupon said they had no commercial interest in misleading their customers; if an offer was poorly described on their website, that detrimentally affected their relationship with customers and business partners, undermining the investment they made in acquiring both. Further, in presenting in excess of 50 deals per day, there was a likelihood of some degree of human error. However, they sought to address that through extensive staff training and by incorporating quality control safeguards. (Via TechEye)

    More details about Groupon’s response on a case-by-case basis can found here. We’ve contacted Groupon for further comment, and will update this post accordingly. 

    Groupon has other things to worry about at the moment, besides its quality control practices. CEO Andrew Mason announced yesterday that the company is suing a company known as Scoopon in Australia, which acquired the company name Groupon Pty Limited and controls the domain Groupon.com.au. This has presented a hurdle for the company’s Australian expansion, and Groupon is now operating under Stardeals in that country – at least for the time being. Mason said the suit could take over a year to be resolved, but is hopeful that the company will take a generous cash offer instead of forcing it to play out.