YouTube virals must play by US ad rules Advertising claims made in videos on YouTube are subject to the same standards of truth and accuracy as ads that appear in traditional media, according to a US advertising watchdog. Such ads can escape the UK regulator's remit, though. A group of advertising industry stakeholders is reviewing UK advertising rules. Its …
I don't understand, the nature of viral marketing is that it is distributed by individuals not related to the organisation. How can the organisation be held responsible for something they have no control over. Even in the cases where the organisation has produced the advert, how difficult would it be for them to get a bogus third party to claim ownership?
Pointless, unenforcible legislation, if you ask me.
I'm sure I remember the same claims in a TV ad.
*Googles...*
<www.dyson.com>
Dyson proves no loss of suction using the IEC 60312 Cl 2.9 test standard on uprights and canister
vacuums and using a test method based on the IEC 60312 Cl 2.9 standard for the handheld.
Dyson proves no loss of suction, best average pick up, and 'overall outcleans other vacuums' using results from
IEC 60312 Cl 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, ASTM F608 and F558, and DTM 755— an independently conducted Dyson test.
</www.dyson.com>
"Dyson's claims were false and based on unreliable and misleading tests". Then again "a company's own websites are not in our remit" so maybe the claim that their claims aren't false is a false claim...
...that there's no law to prevent a company presenting false advertisements on its own website! I mean, no one really trusts advertising that much but, how is that any different to a company advertising in the street? If someone is interested in a product and goes to that companies website to have a look at its specs, and get sold a lie, how is that different to the lie being put out on the street?
Weird...
You mean that there are actual advertising standards in the US? Judging by the claims made in diet pill and "male enhancement" commercials on US tv, I'm surprised that they are enforced at all. The blatant lies in political ads are even worse, but they supposedly come under free speech laws (which basically mean that you can say whatever you like about someone as long as you don't prevent them from replying - i.e. the person with the most money for political ads wins)
What would be the point?
In the context of UK broadband advertising, Ofcon and the ASA have had plenty of opportunity to make "unlimited" (and/or "free") mean something, either on actual adverts or on companies' own websites, and every time they've had the opportunity, they've chickened out. What do we pay these losers for?
Mind you, I saw some German broadband+phone ads on TV at the weekend. Talk about small print - four or five lines of text in the bottom few inches of a 30+" screen... completely illegible, and by far the best argument yet that I've seen for HDTV. I thought they knew better than that over there (the medicine adverts all come with a standard health warning, spoken and in BIG LETTERS, for example).
>>In the US, industry watchdog the National Advertising Division (NAD), part of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, made clear last week that YouTube falls within its regulatory remit.
The Better Business Bureau, as your phrase "industry watchdog" should make clear, is a private organization that, as such, doesn't have a "regulatory remit". This is from the BBB website FAQ:
[Q] Why can't the BBB stop rip-offs and scams?
[A] Many times, BBBs do. Although we do not have legal and policing powers, we provide information about marketplace fraud through scam reports to the public, media releases and alerts.
FYI, the organization that DOES have a regulatory remit is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), specifically, the Division of Advertising Practices. This is the US equivalent of the ASA, not the NAD.
Things aren't quite as easy for advertisers in here in the US as you imagine. Remember, in addition to being the "Land of the Free", America is also the Land of the Litigious (as Steve Ballmer and the crew at Microsoft can attest to, given their recent troubles over the "Vista Capable" campaign).
WRT the "male enhancement" commercials: the FTC may not be overly quick, but they do respond eventually, boy do they: Steve Warshak, owner of Berkley Neutraceuticals (makers of the "Smiling Bob" Enzyte commercials) has recently been sentenced to 25(!) years in prison and ordered to hand over $500 million in profits for fraud conspiracy and money laundering http://tiny.cc/CqQXq
In the US, medical claims are the territory of the Food & Drug Administration, but the FDA's current rules say that it does not regulate vitamins and supplements. So you'll notice all those claims come with disclaimers in tiny print that say this is merely a nutritional supplement and is not intended to diagnose, treat, or prevent any disease.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
