If I was to purchase a bottle of Pump water… take a photo of myself drinking from it… Instagram it… then post it on Pump Australia’s Facebook page with the caption ‘GR8EST WATER EVA’ – is this advertising for Pump Australia? Or is this just my humble opinion about the product?
The answer to these questions was cemented during the week, when a landmark ruling was brought down by the Australian Advertising Standards Board (ASB). The ruling was featured quite heavily in newspapers and marketing websites and had lawyers saying Mr Burns’ favourite quote: ‘excellent’. All because it controversially misses the point of social media and possibly changes social media marketing as we know it.
As a marketing student, it was a pretty exciting week to be at University.
Long story short, the ASB ruled that Facebook pages (and other social media pages) used by businesses are considered to be advertising. Further, businesses have total responsibility over the comments that are made on their Facebook pages which must comply with the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics.
Specifically this means:
- Businesses must regulate all content that appears on their Facebook page, including comments written by other Facebook users.
- Offensive messages which are sexist, racist or factually inaccurate statements are to be removed within a reasonable time frame.
The new ruling will effectively cost businesses time, effort and money in order to be compliant. Businesses will have to employ staff around the clock in an effort to ensure that content on their social media sites complies with the AANA Code of Ethics.
For businesses that easily generate over 500 comments per status update, it is going to be a mammoth task to review every comment. For example, VB has recently come under review for failing to remove some offensive comments on its Facebook page which “slipped through” their review process. In fact, the company has warned that the new ruling is “commercially unrealistic”.
This presents a double edged sword: If businesses disable user comments until they are approved by their Facebook administrators, then it defeats the purpose of engaging and communicating in-the-moment with consumers.
No longer will there be a two way discussion occurring and some Facebook pages are probably going to look quite bland.
And what ever happened to freedom of speech? Surely in this day and age, people can have their opinion without having it deleted.
So the burning questions are: Will businesses turn their back on social media and go running back into the open arms of traditional advertising? Or will businesses just accept this decision and tailor their social media pages accordingly? Or will they allow offensive material to be posted on their wall and pay the penalties?
Having said all that, as the masses in the community start interacting in the world of social media, I think we will start to see more legalities being handed down that will hurt the development of social media.
To view the ASB ruling, please click here.
Hey Laura
ReplyDeletePerhaps somewhat controversially, I differ to a large extent on my reading and reaction to the ASB ruling and the response it has elicited. I actually welcome it!
I think a post (about water or whatnot) is your opinion when it’s on your own Facebook page, or whatever social media platform you’ve chosen to use. I think your opinion becomes advertising when it appears on a brand and or company’s page.
If you had posted it on your own social media page/platform, arguably it would not have the same reach as that of a brand or company’s page, say from about 50 to 200 friends (average amount of friends a person has on Facebook – without assuming too much, you may indeed have many more!) as opposed to 1000+ fans. A global brand has the capacity to have a wider reach and consequently effect.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a business to incur a penalty if it allows content to remain online that contravenes the Discrimination Act (or some other law). Further to this, as discussed in my post, I believe it’s in the brands best interest to maintain a watchful eye on what comments are being posted on their page. Brands and brand value take time to create, allowing a brand to become associated with derogatory comments over the long term can and will change what that brand represents. If I were to go to a page of a brand/business that I had an interest in and I saw a multitude of derogatory posts/comments posted over a long term, I would not feel comfortable, I would not identify and more to the point depending on the severity of the comments, I would not purchase that product again.
Of course business will need to find a way to accommodate the ruling, but I do not believe that will prevent them from using social media to market their product – they will just need to use it with more control in place – and this is not such a bad thing.
Hi Yvonne,
DeleteThanks for your comment. You raise quite valid arguments.
There are Facebook users who may 'like' a businesses Facebook page but may not necessarily like the brand itself. I have 'liked' brands on Facebook in the past and don't intend on purchasing their products (I usually 'like' them to enter a promo!). So I'm not sure that I agree with a Facebook page being considered an advertisement, as to some extent businesses will never win over those who don't really 'like' the brand and they are already preaching to the converted of those who actually do 'like' the brand.
The ASB states that businesses are to remove offensive and factually incorrect messages but my concern is that businesses will use this ruling as an excuse to delete negative posts about the brand from their Facebook page, which may not be offensive nor factually incorrect. Already this week, Target Australia's Facebook page deleted a post by a user who wrote a message to them asking the brand to make more clothing for young girls that doesn't make them look like tramps. This message was not offensive or factually incorrect, it was just one Facebook users opinion of the brand. Is this not the same as an unhappy customer walking into a store and giving their opinion of the brand to a sales assistant? Yes, there may not be the same 1000+ reach of people inside the store watching this conversation, but just like social media- generally in two minutes it's resolved and it's old news. So I think this element is disappointing for social media because its essence is to converse and engage not to delete and ignore.
It goes without saying that as new platforms become available, authorities will step in to create boundaries for its use. Perhaps this is the ASB's way of putting their footprint in wet cement, to remind us that they still exist and have power over channels of communicating?
Well done, Laura and Yvonne. An excellent debate, which I am keen to see continue.
ReplyDeleteWho's on Laura's side, and who agrees with Yvonne?