Media companies that provide video-on-demand (VOD) services are responsible for ensuring compliance with VOD advertising rules when advertising appears as a direct result of a user choosing to view VOD programmes, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has said. Those media service providers are not responsible for …
Can they please introduce a "stop showing ads for stuff I'm never going to buy in a million years" rule too? I remember a couple of years ago one VOD site that managed to evade my ad-blocker used to show me adverts for ladies shampoo a lot - I am not a bird I am a bloke! I don't care about split ends lol and so much for targeted advertising! Maybe they can program the flash player to overlay a message saying - "oi, mate, buy beer instead!" that would probably work!
Acronyms 'r us
I know I'm usually slow on the uptake, and never at my best on a Monday morning anyway, but I'm not sure I followed any of that. Didn't really get past the first couple of paragraphs.
So one [acronym1] is reponsible for regulating ads, except when it isn't in which case another [acronym2] is. Which one it is depends on whether or not the user's done anything, and whether the ad is even vaguely related to what the user's done. The actual compliance is the responsibility of the service provider (why does that sound like the monkey in the banana plantation?), who presumably will get a "tut-tut" from either [acronym1] or [acronym2] if anybody can work out which one to complain to. And above all this we have [acronym3] appointed by [acronym4] , who presumably can also be asked to go "tut-tut".
Well, I'm glad they sorted that out then. As a consumer of VOD (sorry, [acronym5]) I can now sleep soundly in my bed knowing that the mighty engine of consumer protection will roll in to action to sort out my advertising-related gripes. Just as soon as somebody works out who's got the keys, whether the energistic fluid supply operatives have topped up the tank and who the hell's supposed to be driving this time.
CAP operate in a silo
'The CAP Code contains rules that advertisers, generally, have to adhere to and prohibits firms from making misleading claims or causing harm or offence to the public subjected to their promotions, among other things'.
But the CAP Code does not reflect the law of the land. The DPA 98 contains a legal definition of direct marketing and this is interpreted by the Information Commissioner's Office. Why does the CAP operate it's own antiquated definition?