Visit speed website Earlin' PR abuse home
September 1st, 2010 by Steve

Another blog post on the ASA news (and why it’s good for PR)

I woke this morning to details of the ASA’s tightening of the rules on its CAP code to cover digital media evolution. Since then many others have blogged about the intentions, the implications and the practicalities for brands using social media, and in particular for ‘modern’ PR. Meanwhile, I have been sat in meetings scoffing bagels, so am way off the pace.

So let’s get to it. Firstly, the ASA’s landmark agreement is a positive one overall for marketing in that it is an attempt to apply, broadly, the same principles to the online world as to conventional media. The devil will be in the detail and it’s right that far more clarity is needed on definitions, but for me today’s announcement does one thing that’s very helpful to PRs – underlines that there is a fundamental difference between editorial content and bought ‘promotion’ in social media.

Until now, with the ASA’s clout applied to making the distinction, the lines have been blurred. PR firms have touted campaigns that use social media which are, probably, encroaching on advertising. The ad agencies are certainly doing their utmost to encroach on PR – some even implying that PR is redundant where media reaches audiences directly. Social media agencies have exploited the jiggery-pokery by delivering campaigns that ignore those arguments and focus on reaching the right people using just social media. At least that’s what they’ll tell you.

With the ASA’s point – about editorial content being exempt from the legislation because doing so would impair freedom of speech – ringing in my ears, my thinking is that proper rules about how brands should conduct themselves in new media will be an asset to PR firms rather than a drag. We have enough on our plates trying to modernise to fit the needs of changing media without having to fight constant turf wars about where and how influence can fairly be exerted.

That said, where there are rules there are always those with an interest in challenging them, and it probably won’t be long before – unless clinically defined – the boundaries of what constitutes editorial will be tested. One thing is for sure: the ASA has its work cut out legislating for all of this, given the pace at which media is evolving.

March 22nd, 2010 by Steve

Spun parliament: accept/decline/tentative

The Advertising Standard Agency’s recent ruling on the Government’s climate change advertising campaign begs one big question for the PR sector ahead of the looming General Election: is spin screwed?

In banning two press ads, the ASA advised that Government advertising should be more “tentative”. Viewers had apparently found them misleading, scaremongering and distressing.

So, tentative. If the previous three General Elections, particularly the 1997 one which was lauded as the dawn of the age of spin, had seen a more tentative approach to party political PR, the media outcomes would most likely have been very different.

Choice of words is rarely more important than in pre-election PR. So what would happen if a watchdog (alright, strictly speaking there isn’t one) waded in and ruled that electoral media spin must be restricted, with all words intended for editorial pick-up phrased tentatively?

We haven’t had the list of 2010 election pledges yet. But here are three recent press releases from each of the main UK political parties, and how those stories may have looked if a more tentative approach had been taken:

Labour
- For the last 10 years the Conservatives have been concealing the truth – Straw: Government concerned that some people may have been a little on the opaque side, at times
- Action on ant-social behaviour: Measures are mooted on what things may be feasible to deal with behaviour that some may deem not in the best interests of members of society at all times
- Securing the recovery is essential – Gordon Brown: Economic prosperity might be a good thing for some people, says the man we understand to be Prime Minister

Conservative
- Conservatives call for investigation into lobbying scandal: Conservatives ask fairly nicely about whether questions could potentially be asked about whether or not lobbying rules were not entirely adhered to
- Labour undermines ivory ban: Opposition could ask for scrutiny of possible Government lack of support for planned changes to ban (tsk tsk)
- Conservatives propose radical overhaul of Britain’s energy policy: potential alternative plans are made public; any inference that the current Government has not done things right is not necessarily intended

Liberal Democrat
- Government must honour cheap tickets pledge for Olympics says Foster: the Government should really, if it can find it in its heart to do so, come good on the probable assertion it may have made about the Olympics
- Pensioners must be exempt from broadband tax says Foster: People who may no longer be young and could claim pensions should probably not dip into their pockets over the internet’s future
- Nick Clegg calls for cross-party Council of Financial Stability: LibDem leader may have uttered something about a potentially joined-up way of tackling the deficit, if indeed such financial conditions currently exist

Spin. Best stick with it, and stay cynical.