Indirect promotion of prohibited categories of TV advertising
07 September 2005
Rule 3.1 of the BCAP Advertising Standards Code refers to product categories that may not be advertised on TV because either statute, public policy or former ITC or OFCOM policy has deemed TV an unacceptable medium for advertising those products. That will usually have been because of its easy accessibility by children or other vulnerable audiences, its potential influence or its intrusiveness in the home, it being, in practice, not possible to filter out TV advertising for the watching audience.
Rule 3.2 is designed to prevent TV advertising being used to circumvent those prohibitions by leading viewers to promotional material in other media. The rule states “No advertisement may indirectly publicise an unacceptable product or service”. A note has been added to the website version of the Code to explain that “No advertisement is acceptable if a significant effect of it would be to publicise an unacceptable product or service by, for example, referring viewers to a website, publication etc where the product or service is promoted to a significant extent.”
Regulatory policy on Indirect Promotion has long required those who pre-vet advertising on behalf of licensees to make pragmatic judgements about how “significant” a particular piece of indirect promotion resulting from an advertisement would be.
Experiences of the ITC, OFCOM and now the ASA and BCAP, have indicated that problems still occasionally occur with applying the Indirect Promotion rule where a TV advertisement refers viewers to Internet sites. We hope it will therefore be helpful to offer some guidance about how clause 3.2 should be interpreted in that context.
TV advertisements that refer viewers to the Internet raise difficulties because websites can be easily changed during the run of a campaign. Websites can be very large and the homepages often have links to other sections and to other websites entirely. And, unlike hard copy magazines, for example, all links are simple and instant whereas with a magazine you are likely to have to dig among the pages to find a particular promotion or advertisement. The ASA and BCAP expect licensees to make all reasonable checks and enquiries when applying the Indirect Promotion rule
A key aspect of 3.2 is the “significant effect” test. So we expect licensees’ pre-vetting of advertising to include the investigation of the major categories of content on the advertised website and any link or route that seem reasonably likely viewers will follow to another part of the site or to other websites. It is not necessary to pursue every conceivable path if it is unlikely that viewers would follow them. Reasonable judgements should be made about the point at which the presence or promotion of banned categories of content or advertising is no longer “significant”.
Factors that should be taken into account in judging whether “significant” promotion is likely include the apparent purpose of the website, any embedded or pop-up ads for unacceptable categories and the prominence, impact, appeal and labelling of any hyperlinks etc.
Judgement is inevitably subjective. If you would like advice on the general implication of the Indirect Promotion rule, please get in touch with the BCAP Code Policy team on 020 7492 2117 or at tinac@cap.org.uk. The BACC will, of course, advise you on specific advertisements.