Posts Tagged ‘electronic retailing self regulation program’

Membership Has Its Privileges

Friday, February 13th, 2009

petermarinello.jpg As some of you may be aware, the National Advertising Review Council (NARC) recently announced a board expansion to include representatives from the Electronic Retailing Association (ERA), the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). These associations now join the flagship members of the NARC Board, namely: the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), the American Advertising Federation (AAF) and the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB).

The expansion of the board is an unprecedented step in the history of advertising self-regulation and represents the board’s first move in this direction since NARC was founded in 1971. Last year I had the good fortune of being part of a NARC Strategic Planning Committee along with ERA’s Bill McClellan, NARC President Lee Peeler, his predecessor Jim Guthrie, among others, and we were able to persuade the NARC Board of the significance of ERA’s voice in the advertising industry and its importance in being “ahead of the curve” in identifying the pivotal issues facing the industry. The NARC Board sets policies and procedures for advertising industry self-regulation, and ERA’s well deserved addition recognizes the association’s longstanding support of self-regulation and the expertise that they bring to addressing the challenges of self-regulation.

As if I haven’t used my allowed allotment of acronyms already, this may be a great time to reacquaint everyone with where the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP) comes from and what we do. In 1971 ANA, AAAA, AAF formed an alliance with the CBBB to create an independent self-regulatory body, NARC. To ensure the credibility and impartiality of the self-regulation system, the advertising review process was set up to operate under the administrative purview of the CBBB. In 2004, the ERA and NARC partnered to form ERSP, and the recent expansion of the board to include Ms. Coons further solidifies this relationship.

ERSP’s mission is to enhance consumer confidence in electronic retailing by providing a quick and effective mechanism for resolving inquiries regarding the truthfulness and accuracy of claims in direct response advertising. ERSP inquiries originate from competitor challenges, consumer complaints and ERSP’s ongoing monitoring program. To date, companies working with ERSP have modified or discontinued nearly two hundred advertisements in an effort to foster more accurate product information to consumers. ERSP is a recognized example of how industry self-regulation can improve industry standards and the consumer experience, a benefit for all parties involved.

By expanding the NARC Board to include ERA, its members are now going to be ensured an advocate within the advertising community at large, and will be part of the discussion on the future of advertising regulation. So with the heartiest of welcomes, we applaud ERA’s appointment to the NARC Board, which means that this organization now literally has a seat at the table and its rightful place amongst the advertising industry at large.

Peter Marinello works for the National Advertising Review Council and spearheads ERSP.

Behavioral Tracking or Behavioral Stalking?

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

leah.jpg Just when I thought social websites, such as Facebook, were attempting to provide a little more security by tweaking the adjustability of the privacy settings, I began to take note of the sponsored link ads that creep along the sides of my homepage and the pages of other unsuspecting users and wonder just how confidential my profile actually is.

Facebook knows my name, my sex, my educational background, my e-mail address and my face, literally. But just because I am a 21-year-old female does not mean I need to visit a website to meet a man, apparently of my dreams, or review a casino’s website with hopes to spend the wads of cash the typical college student has hidden under his or her dorm mattress. Should I take offense to the airbrushed images flashing on the screen promoting weight loss? Hmm, who knew simply taking a weight-loss supplement could make any girl centerfold worthy?

Is it ethical for a website to require such user information and then allow its users to be hounded with what advertisers deem relevant to our being based solely on keywords found scattered amongst our online identities? And it’s not just social networking websites. My e-mail accounts are being bombarded with sponsored links containing keywords evidently scouted out from my e-mails as well. Sure, we have the choice to sign up for such services, but should we not have to give consent for our online personalities to be analyzed and solicited?

I can accept search engines tracking my queries and on some level understand and appreciate the effort and help. Facebook and Gmail stalking my habits and statistics could be seen in some circles as abusing their rights to my personal information, and I don’t think I can get on board with it. I suggest a course of action be taken towards more privacy before many decide it may be time to defriend Facebook and put Gmail in the trash.

Leah Mitter is an intern with the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program.

The Quiznos-Subway “Battle Royale”

Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

petermarinello.jpg If you haven’t seen it yet, there’s an interesting advertising dispute brewing between Quiznos and Subway sandwich shops. It seems Quiznos invited the public to submit homemade videos in a contest intended to target its rival, Subway. The contest rules stated that video submissions were meant to draw “a comparison between Quiznos and Subway with Quiznos being superior.”

One of the videos showed a Subway sandwich running to a Quiznos store to find more meat. Another showed two submarines looking like sandwiches, with the Subway submarine being destroyed because it did not have enough meat.

Subway subsequently sued Quiznos, alleging that several of the homemade videos made false claims and depicted its brand in a disparaging manner. In addition, Subway also objected to ads that Quiznos itself created, showing people on the street choosing Quiznos over Subway. The legal question here is because Quiznos did not create the submissions, so should it be held liable for user-generated content created on its behalf?

From a claim substantiation standpoint (assuming that the “more meat” claim is one of the false statements), I wouldn’t want to be the attorney representing Quiznos in this one. You see, knowledge is a dangerous thing. In my opinion, once an advertiser is made aware that claims are being disseminated in the marketplace without the prerequisite underlying support, the advertiser is responsible and must exercise a reasonable effort to remove the videos/ads from circulation. As Richard Leighton, a partner at Keller and Heckman who specializes in advertising and trademark law noted in a New York Times article: “It’s not like Quiznos said, ‘Do any interesting video you can.’ They provoked it, instigated it, so it may be that the consumers, in this case, are effectively their agents.” (more…)