themselves from the competition?
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:09 am
advertising code social media dos and donts
flyer about the Social Media Advertising Code
Bumps
I also foresaw – and foresaw – some bumps in (the supervision of) compliance with the RSM. I am not the only one, I heard in the room and at the reception. This is also confirmed by those involved.
First, consider the number of reports/complaints. The SRC does not monitor proactively, so it depends on reports from consumers, advertisers or agencies. Figures provided by the Advertising Code Foundation show that in the whole of 2013, literally one (international, cross-border) complaint was received that related to what would now fall under the RSM in the Netherlands.
Awareness of the code means more alert consumers
In 2014, one complaint was also filed, but the year is only 4 weeks old. Due to the media attention for this code, many consumers now know that it exists. It seems that those involved are also pushing for this: awareness of the code means more alert consumers. Hopefully. In any case, it does not seem to be flooding with reports yet, but that can of course still change.
Another example of a potential hurdle: the advertiser (e.g. KLM) pays the distributor (e.g. Armin van Buuren) to post something positive about his brand on his Facebook page or Twitter account. The advertiser (KLM) tells the distributor (Armin): 'oh yes, you do have to adhere to this code'.
But of course the distributor is free to do whatever he wants on his own channel. If he doesn't add a #spon, he is basically free to do so. The distributor doesn't have to adhere to the RSM and the advertiser only has an obligation of effort according to the code. So the advertiser can say: "yes I told him to add it but yes, I can't force him".
Would you like to know?
The question Willem kept asking is: would you want to know? The answers to that are rather diffuse. A number of people nod – but an equally large number say they can see through it themselves, or that it is not always relevant for followers. If you are 16 and you are a fan of Lady Gaga, you want to have the same dress as her. Whether she was paid for it by that brand and says so honestly, or whether she really chose and paid for it herself. That no longer matters to you.
100% honesty is unachievable
Actually, the same applies to offline/other media: how do you know for sure that the editors of your favorite magazine do not also write something positive about product X in an article (not an advertorial) because something was given to them? You do not know, Jitty and Willem also admit. It remains a grey area. The reader, follower or Googler never knows for sure whether a message he reads is really 100% honest. Never.
It is different with reviews, for example: Willem gives an example in which organizations in good faith (or if you prefer: naively) purchase positive reviews from companies that offer them. Even though the latter of course know very well that what they offer is not right. This shows what the initiators claim: there is a need to educate marketers.
Isn't there something else at play here...?
shovel under own assDid the industry want to gain favor with the government by opting for self-regulation? Is it a PR stunt by the DDMA? An attempt by agencies to distinguish A little bit of everything.
Jitty readily admits that the industry has learned its lesson with the cookie legislation . By not applying timely self-regulation, the industry has given the government room to, after some European coercion, draw up the cookie legislation itself - without much knowledge of the matter. As a result, it has become a monster of a law that is almost impossible to implement and that seems to be the strictest in Europe. The only positive result of this has been that the industry now wants to come up with workable guidelines itsel bosnia and herzegovina mobile phone number list f in a timely manner. Better that, than to let it come to that and have the not-so-tech-savvy politics issue unworkable laws again.
But Willem is also honest enough to say that he is also interested in a bit of PR and preventive measures. By drawing up guidelines and communicating about them, hopefully consumer awareness will also be created. Not every tweet from your hero or review on a rating site is honest – or false, of course. Because what bothers him is that there is now a tenor that no review site can be trusted anymore, because you never know whether the reviews are sponsored. And that could do with some more clarity, he thinks.
Where is the fun then for the marketer?
Jitty nods: “All those codes and rules and laws do indeed lead to the feeling of legalisation of all marketing. But it also appears to be necessary, if you look at the fact that the ACM (Dutch Consumer & Market Authority, the former consumer authority) has handed out 1.2 million in fines in recent years. Still, I do have the idea that the campaigns are becoming more qualitative, more targeted and more creative as a result. Marketers sometimes had the tendency to shoot with a shotgun, but now they are increasingly thinking in advance about who and where the target group is, what they want to achieve and so on.”
The questions from the audience also show that organizations are going to explore what is still allowed, what is not, and why. One will behave more Catholic than the Pope, the other will seek out the outer limits.
Clear Q&As
flyer about the Social Media Advertising Code
Bumps
I also foresaw – and foresaw – some bumps in (the supervision of) compliance with the RSM. I am not the only one, I heard in the room and at the reception. This is also confirmed by those involved.
First, consider the number of reports/complaints. The SRC does not monitor proactively, so it depends on reports from consumers, advertisers or agencies. Figures provided by the Advertising Code Foundation show that in the whole of 2013, literally one (international, cross-border) complaint was received that related to what would now fall under the RSM in the Netherlands.
Awareness of the code means more alert consumers
In 2014, one complaint was also filed, but the year is only 4 weeks old. Due to the media attention for this code, many consumers now know that it exists. It seems that those involved are also pushing for this: awareness of the code means more alert consumers. Hopefully. In any case, it does not seem to be flooding with reports yet, but that can of course still change.
Another example of a potential hurdle: the advertiser (e.g. KLM) pays the distributor (e.g. Armin van Buuren) to post something positive about his brand on his Facebook page or Twitter account. The advertiser (KLM) tells the distributor (Armin): 'oh yes, you do have to adhere to this code'.
But of course the distributor is free to do whatever he wants on his own channel. If he doesn't add a #spon, he is basically free to do so. The distributor doesn't have to adhere to the RSM and the advertiser only has an obligation of effort according to the code. So the advertiser can say: "yes I told him to add it but yes, I can't force him".
Would you like to know?
The question Willem kept asking is: would you want to know? The answers to that are rather diffuse. A number of people nod – but an equally large number say they can see through it themselves, or that it is not always relevant for followers. If you are 16 and you are a fan of Lady Gaga, you want to have the same dress as her. Whether she was paid for it by that brand and says so honestly, or whether she really chose and paid for it herself. That no longer matters to you.
100% honesty is unachievable
Actually, the same applies to offline/other media: how do you know for sure that the editors of your favorite magazine do not also write something positive about product X in an article (not an advertorial) because something was given to them? You do not know, Jitty and Willem also admit. It remains a grey area. The reader, follower or Googler never knows for sure whether a message he reads is really 100% honest. Never.
It is different with reviews, for example: Willem gives an example in which organizations in good faith (or if you prefer: naively) purchase positive reviews from companies that offer them. Even though the latter of course know very well that what they offer is not right. This shows what the initiators claim: there is a need to educate marketers.
Isn't there something else at play here...?
shovel under own assDid the industry want to gain favor with the government by opting for self-regulation? Is it a PR stunt by the DDMA? An attempt by agencies to distinguish A little bit of everything.
Jitty readily admits that the industry has learned its lesson with the cookie legislation . By not applying timely self-regulation, the industry has given the government room to, after some European coercion, draw up the cookie legislation itself - without much knowledge of the matter. As a result, it has become a monster of a law that is almost impossible to implement and that seems to be the strictest in Europe. The only positive result of this has been that the industry now wants to come up with workable guidelines itsel bosnia and herzegovina mobile phone number list f in a timely manner. Better that, than to let it come to that and have the not-so-tech-savvy politics issue unworkable laws again.
But Willem is also honest enough to say that he is also interested in a bit of PR and preventive measures. By drawing up guidelines and communicating about them, hopefully consumer awareness will also be created. Not every tweet from your hero or review on a rating site is honest – or false, of course. Because what bothers him is that there is now a tenor that no review site can be trusted anymore, because you never know whether the reviews are sponsored. And that could do with some more clarity, he thinks.
Where is the fun then for the marketer?
Jitty nods: “All those codes and rules and laws do indeed lead to the feeling of legalisation of all marketing. But it also appears to be necessary, if you look at the fact that the ACM (Dutch Consumer & Market Authority, the former consumer authority) has handed out 1.2 million in fines in recent years. Still, I do have the idea that the campaigns are becoming more qualitative, more targeted and more creative as a result. Marketers sometimes had the tendency to shoot with a shotgun, but now they are increasingly thinking in advance about who and where the target group is, what they want to achieve and so on.”
The questions from the audience also show that organizations are going to explore what is still allowed, what is not, and why. One will behave more Catholic than the Pope, the other will seek out the outer limits.
Clear Q&As