Asa MarketingEssay Preview: Asa MarketingReport this essayWith the use of examples review current advertisements banned by the ASA. Critically analyse the rules imposed by the ASA, are they reflective of public demand.
ASA are the UKs independent regulator of advertising in all media. They ensure that the ads being produced are legal, decent, honest and truthful by using the advertising codes and by seeing if the ads meet their regulations.
Referring to the LOreal foundation make up advertisements, ASA decided that it was socially responsible for them to ban the two ads as it was claimed to be misleading and dishonest. Many argued that LOreal used the tool of airbrushing in their images of Christy Turlington and Julia Roberts to enhance the perfection of their foundation cosmetic. However, LOreal did own up to the claim and admitted that within their Maybelline and LancĂ´me ad they did utilise the use of post production techniques, but they justified themselves by adding that the reason for using the tool of airbrushing was to accurately illustrate the results This can have a huge impact on public demand, consumers are technically buying a product that doesnt work the way it portrays in its ads, if the foundation products worked the way Maybelline and LancĂ´me claimed it did, there would be no need for LOreal to edit the images. But does this mean that there will be a fall in demand? Referring to figure 1, we see that in 2006 LOreal was ranked 359th, as the year goes on in 2007 the ranking rises as well as LOreals revenues and profit. However in 2008 which was after the ads were banned, LOreals ranking fell to 355 but nonetheless its revenues and profits were still increasing. Thus, even though LOreals reputation and ranking was effected, their revenue and profits were still favourable.
Figure 1-CNNs Annual RankingRankingRevenues($ millions)Profits($ millions)23,3553,63519,811.12,585.818,057.62,450.7The media can dominate a lot of people in terms of controlling people, for example, consumers want to have skin like Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, so they are manipulated into thinking that if they buy this product they can potentially have flawless skin. However this is not the case, a lot of digital work has gone into these ads to manipulate people, but why do consumers still believe in these ads? In terms of the way consumers behave, they like to mimic the behaviour of other people, for
instance, celebrities. So when people are falsely manipulated into buying these cosmetics, they are either going to buy this product and test it out for themselves or they arent genuinely aware whether the models have been airbrushed or not.
There have been many complaints made by Jo Swinson MP, she co founded the Campaign for Body Confidence this also included a crusade against airbrushing. ASA agreed with her complaints and action was taken as both ads were banned. This can be a threat to other ads that have misled consumers; if companies dont want their ads to be banned they should act socially responsible and not disobey the advertising codes. Swinson wants advertisements to get back to reality; however will this strategy attract the eye of consumers? Are they still going to be interested in the products? Well, going back to point of digital manipulation, LOreal would not need to do this if their foundation products worked properly. Ads like these can have an adverse impact on society making people more self conscious. Thus, no matter how well a product is portrayed in an advertisement; consumers are still willing to buy the cosmetic products that will seem to improve their appearance.
The ASA is in opposition to the brand. The ad campaigns are not as positive as it sounds. ASA has never published a review of their ad campaign. They did not make any comments and if they’ve been a supporter of ASA it is no surprise they would also like a return on investment in the brand. “They said the campaign would be ‘one of the most successful marketing campaigns we have ever attempted’.” [http://www.advertiser.co.uk/news/article?aID=1159] The ASA has always opposed the brand because they don’t have enough time to focus on their other business. The ads can cause negative feelings to people who have bought their products. The ASA didn’t tell the ASA about their other ad campaign that I linked. [http://www.advertiser.co.uk/news/article?aID=1159] The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is a public body that must ensure appropriate ethical and ethical conduct at all times. Advertising Standards, as an organization and without the approval of the Advertising Committee, must never cause any harm to anyone or to any commercial organisation. A boycott against an advertiser is a boycott only. It is a breach of those guidelines which have been set by the ASA.
We were contacted by readers to provide feedback on ASA’s response to the complaint. We spoke to a number of advertisers. The following comments were obtained to support the ASA’s decision.
The company will apologise on behalf of the campaign from our point of view but its position will be to be open and honest, without the need for any comment:
“It is our feeling that ASA’s conduct during our review of the ad claims that their ‘content management policy’ is ‘disappointing’. This is contrary to the policies of A/B Hardship Limited as set out in their website and the ASA’s statement of understanding where these policy is in fact inconsistent with the policy and what it considers to be acceptable and effective, as well as ASA’s legal authority, which does not permit us to endorse the advertisement but not endorse what those statements say about ASA on their website. The ASA has not made any statement or reference to the fact that ASA’s content management policy should be reviewed in its entirety, but they have no right to make such statements. We believe that this has been set forth in the ASA’s statement of understanding in relation to the policy. We are not seeking public criticism of the advertiser or anyone else. However, we believe the ASA is entitled to comment on the ASA’s position at the conclusion of their analysis, and would not wish to undertake any further comments on these matters.”
We would advise people to read about the ASA’s Policy of Acceptability of content on ASA’s website. Please contact our Admins or call directly at 020 729 526 to schedule an online consultation.
To read further it was suggested that ASA was required to meet its own criteria for being an authority on this issue. It can be argued at least with regard to the fact that ASA has taken no steps on its own to make sure its advertiser policy reads appropriately at all times, as well as the fact that the ASA was in the process of establishing procedures to implement its own internal procedures for this.
As to what they wrote in its final ad summary:
“[The ASA] asserts that the content management policy on ads in the context of Adsense is inconsistent with the approach of BHHS. The BHHS policy will seek to ensure that these features and functions are used consistently in the public interest for all advertisers – and this can always be achieved through strong advertising and marketing campaigns. ASA contends that although the policies on this point are clearly stated in terms associated with the advertiser’s advertising policy, the policy in question could have more
Furthermore, this wasnt the only LOreal ad that ASA has banned for misleading customers. LOreals Telescopic mascara offers up to 60% longer lashes however many have complained that the model in the ad, Penelope Cruz, was wearing false eyelashes. LOreal agreed that individual false lashes were used within the ad but to only fill in the gaps in between the natural eyelashes. As LOreal did not make it apparent to customers that the model was wearing false eyelashes, ASA consider this to be deceiving and dishonest and have therefore banned the ad. According to ASA Annual Report 2007 it states that all cosmetic advertisers are obligatory to incorporate disclaimers in its ads, explaining whether false eyelashes are being used.
LOreal has had many complaints about its products and the way they have been portrayed, resulting in ads being banned. There is no question that their reputation has declined; and whether or not their products work