As the ASA is stripped of yet another duty, rows among ad agencies continue, reports Jacquie Golding-Duffy
Conflict concerning comparative advertising continues to brew in the ad industry. This follows the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) demand for the withdrawal of a recent BMW advertisement.
The advertisement, a product of the agency Hunt Lascaris TBWA, was based on police statistics and compared the numbers of different models of vehicles stolen in Gauteng. It was made in a bid to prove that BMW was not the most hijacked car in South Africa. The ASA said the ad had to be submitted for clearance first and demanded its withdrawal.
“The agency failed to follow the rules. The code stipulates that advertisements come through us for clearance before they are endorsed. We have to establish the facts and ensure that the comparisons made are fair,” said ASA executive director Deline Beukes. Hunt Lascaris argued that, at the time, it did not regard itself as breaking the rules, but it did withdraw the ad.
Beukes said the ASA was still waiting for the agency to submit the advertisement for clearance.
However, the ASA is about to be stripped of its clearance function.
Beukes said that current discussions will see the “entire clearance function” transferred to “a completely new body which still has to be established” and which would not operate under the auspices of the ASA.
It may operate under the Association of Advertising Agencies but this was not confirmed, she said.
Beukes added that the ASA’s life would be “much easier” once the responsibility of clearing advertisements was shifted. “Our main function will still be self-regulation with an emphasis on adjudication. We will continue to accept complaints from consumers and the industry and in terms of our code, investigate the advertisement in question and make a ruling.”
She said despite the ASA’s reprimanding of Hunt Lascaris, it refused to get involved in the overall industry wrangle on comparative advertising.
The ASA would rather have member bodies resolve the dispute. “We reflect the majority view of our 24 member bodies which voted in favour of well-controlled comparative advertising in 1994,” she said.
However, Saatchi and Saatchi deputy chairman and client services director Rodney Leech said comparative advertising was against the Trade Marks Act. The agency felt there was a place for comparative advertising, but in a limited form. “I’m inclined to agree that full-blown comparative advertising leads to all sorts of things, including litigation,” Leech said.
He said the ASA was a policing body which implemented the law, but did not make the rules. “The ASA’s code of practice was agreed to by the Association of Marketeers.”
But Hunt Lascaris managing director in Johannesburg, Reinher Behrens, said his agency had always been in favour of comparative advertising as long as “campaign claims are truthful” and the “advertisement is dealt with in a responsible way.
“The strong brands will always survive and can, therefore, indulge in comparative advertising on the basis of their merits,” Behrens said.
Ogilvy and Mather chief executive officer Robyn Putter said comparative advertising was no longer used extensively in the world. “To use comparative advertising and make claims of product superiority needs legal advice first.
“While with comparative advertising you can win the occasional battle, it’s certain that you won’t win the war,” Putter said. He added that he believed this “sort of tactic” resulted in short term gain and felt it wiser to spend money on building up credibility rather than trying to claim superiority.
Sources in the industry said that although the ASA was not a dynamic body, it was necessary to prevent government interference.
The ASA, however, said member bodies were against the most liberal option of comparative advertising.
“We only reflect the views of the industry and implement the law when it comes to the Trade Marks Act. The Act prohibits the naming of brands and is legislation which was made outside of the ASA,” Beukes said.