UK Politics not governed by advertising standards


Given the controversy of claim and counterclaim during the UK referendum on membership of the EU it’s interesting to see the difference between selling products and services and selling political ideas.

Aldi recently fell foul of the Advertising Standards Authority on an issue about claims they made about potential customer savings. 

However:

The Advertising standards authority state in their codex under section 7.1 that.

Claims in marketing communications, whenever published or distributed, whose principal function is to influence voters in a local, regional, national or international election or referendum are exempt from the Code.

Regardless of any ruling like 7.1 above that might be modified the ASA states its mission is to provide marketing communication rules that mean:

advertising must be responsible, must not mislead, or offend 

What do you make of that?

Are Scary Ads Ethical?

  
A Norfolk theme park has had an advert banned for being too scary. 

Marketing Week Clown advert article explains how Norfolk Dinosaur Park are running a Primeval event which has attracted controversy for frightening children  through its advertising. 
Now call me a cynic, don’t you think it’s all a bit suspicious? What a great way to get more than the expected level of interest in your value proposition. Get it banned and improve your brand!

There seems to be a pattern here with Norfolk and marketing communications controversy. Remember the Britain’s Magical Waterland that tried to re-describe Norfolk to attract more visitors? 

So is sailing close to the ethical wind justifiable in order to sell more stuff? The advertising standards authority clearly don’t think so. 

What do you think? Is any publicity good publicity or should a compelling offer of value be able to speak for itself? 

In the end maybe it’s all down to the ASA suffering from Coulrophobia ?

#fearofclowns #clowns

%d bloggers like this: