Interbrand IQ: The Best Asian Brands Issue

rss

social media watch

The Landmark Facebook Ruling That "Rocked" Diageo

Posted by Sheila Shayon on August 7, 2012 10:19 AM

The Australian Advertising Standards Board (an arm of the country's Advertising Standards Bureau) has ruled that Facebook is an advertising medium, and as such, company pages must comply with pertinent codes and laws, vetting all public posts to ensure they are not sexist, racist or factually inaccurate.

“In a move that could change the nature of the social networking site forever, companies could be fined or publicly shamed for the comments that appear on their Facebook ''brand'' pages,” writes the Sydney Morning Herald.

The case involved a complaint to the ASB about Smirnoff vodka's Australian Facebook page, “accused of violating standards with sexist, obscene Facebook content that also promoted underage drinking." The ruling is tantamount to, in the words of Web Pro News, “If you can’t say it on TV or the radio, Facebook users can’t say it on your brand page.”  

The ruling "rocked" Foster's and Smirnoff's parent company Diageo, according to Beverage Daily. Diageo reportedly “argued that Smirnoff's Facebook page is a networking tool for communication between company and customer rather than a medium for advertising.”

But consumers don't perceive an official branded FB page as "marketing tool" instead of a "medium for advertising," the ASB counter-argued. Its contention: a Facebook page is a marketing communication tool if it is used "to draw the attention of a segment of the public to a product in a manner calculated to promote or oppose that product."

The Board did not pursue the specific Smirnoff complaint, but ruled in general that Australia’s advertising laws were applicable to everything on a brand’s page — and not just content generated by the company, a ruling with significant impact for large brands where thousands and thousands of comments are regularly posted.

"This is in some ways surprising and may be counterproductive, as it creates an extra burden for brand managers as they are going to have to have people monitoring Facebook. The question is does it apply daily or do you have to look hourly?" asked John Swinson, partner at law firm King & Wood Mallesons.

With Facebook the largest digital landscape for advertising, the residual opportunity for both censorship and misinformation has augmented to the point where the fine line between the two is blurred. 

Swinson continues, “If as a Facebook page user I say 'Smirnoff is great because it is a great Russian vodka' when in fact it is made in Australia and New Zealand, that raises an issue for Smirnoff as that is clearly my opinion even though it is factually incorrect. Rather than censoring, which I think is going too far, I think commenting to correct the record is the appropriate thing to do."

The Australian Association of National Advertisers accepts their members' obligation to regulate comments on brand pages, and sees the fundamental quandary as “how that can be best achieved without destroying the integrity and spirit of social media. That's a challenge that faces anyone, whether that be a media company, an advertiser, a blogger, whoever,” commented Alina Bain, director of regulatory affairs, to the Sydney Morning Herald

Comments

Mike Langford United States says:

Many regulated companies, like those in the financial services industry, here in the United States are already held to a standard where they are considered responsible for the content others post on internet sites where they have control over the messaging. This goes for a blog or a Facebook page.

The logic, according to the regulators, is that after some time the content stops being interactive content and becomes static content that the company, brand or individual (in the case of a financial advisor) has essentially endorsed the comments to be true and relevant to future visitors to their site by deciding to leave those comments there for all to read. If you knowingly leave a misleading statement up on your website aren't you now responsible for that statement?

I suspect we will see other industries forced to deal with this challenge as well.

August 7, 2012 04:17 PM #

Dr. Kristin Comeforo United States says:

This may be the push that many brands needed to get SERIOUS about their social media efforts.  With the threat of "public shaming" (at least in Australia!) brands may monitor their pages more, which may lead to more responsiveness and interaction with fan comments.  

"Regulation" is such a demonized word, but it might just save lackadaisical brands and bring them into the fold of good social media management.

@brandDR

August 8, 2012 07:41 AM #

Patrick art United States says:

Wonderfull post. Regards.

August 8, 2012 11:54 AM #

Dan United States says:

The ruling that content that a brand posts to its  FB page is advertising is not groundbreaking.   That was already the law. What is significant and new is that the brand is also responsble for use-posted content.  Even that is not all that burdensome since most brands moderate their pages and would remove illegal or objectionable posts.

August 10, 2012 03:29 PM #

Pro United States says:

Good for the Aussies.  I think they've got it right.

August 10, 2012 03:38 PM #

Comments are closed

Brand Chatter on Twitter

elsewhere on brandchannel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
brandcameo2013 Product Placement Awards
Which brand is most bullish on Hollywood?
Coca-ColaIt's the Journey That Matters:
Coca-Cola Opens Up With Story-Based Web Refresh
debateJoin the Debate
What makes a great brand?
BPBP
Branding Comeback Challenges
Denise Lee YohnLance Armstrong’s Brand
Denise Lee Yohn Weighs In
Digital Watch: WahlAT&T
Rethinking Possible With Transmedia Storytelling
paperGlobal Competitive [Ad]vantage
The latest from GeoEdge
Sheryl Connelly
Sheryl Connelly

Meet Ford's Resident Futurist
Marketing to the New MajorityBranding 123
A primer by Barry Silverstein