Advertising Regulatory Board rules 'Rama is a spread and not a margarine'
ASA chief executive Gail Schimmel. PIcture: Twitter ASA chief executive Gail Schimmel. PIcture: Twitter
Consumer - The Advertising Standards Authority ruled on anything and everything related to advertising, from the ridiculous to the sublime, from the dreary to the offensive.
There were complaints about salacious billboard adverts for sex shops, “provocative” ads for nappies, humping dogs, dietary snake oils, and Achmed the Dead Terrorist.
But after hundreds of rulings, the industry watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), was shut down in October - a month later it was rebuilt as the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB).
The ASA, which was mandated to protect consumers, had entrenched itself over its 50 years of operation as the complaints body tasked with keeping members in line, acting independently of the industry to prevent harmful or false advertising.
Its powers were so far-reaching that it not only had the ability to rule against members - it could act against non-members too by wielding influence over the industry, especially broadcasters.
Many consumers viewed the ASA with reverence, as the one body willing - and able - to take on the big guys.
But by 2015, it became evident though that the ASA was in deep financial trouble, compounded by ceaseless litigation.
Last month, it was placed into liquidation after Sars rejected an ASA offer to its creditors.
The decision, described as “peculiar” at the time by ASA chief executive Gail Schimmel, was devastating.
The body was ordered to cease trading immediately.
Schimmel, who was hopeful to the bitter end that the body would be able to claw itself out of business rescue, vowed that would not be the end of the industry’s self-regulation.
She promised that ASA members were determined that the end of the ASA would not mean the end of self-regulation of advertising content in the country and that a new advertising regulator would be launched by marketing and advertising industries.
Schimmel said: “Over the last year the ASA has restructured to reduce operating costs, re-established a funding system, increased its output and reduced its turnaround time.”
She said the marketing, advertising and communications industries were committed to self-regulation of commercial speech, “in order to protect consumers from misleading and potentially harmful advertising and will do whatever is necessary to preserve it”.
A month later, the ASA was reborn as the ARB, formed by the marketing and advertising industry.
Schimmel’s optimistic about its rebirth because it allows them to start afresh while benefiting from half a century’s experience.
“We were determined that it wouldn’t take long before we got started again,” she said.
“This gives us a chance of starting on a clean slate. We also don’t have bad relationships and we don’t have pending litigation from historic cases.”
Much of the clout wielded by the ASA was due to its support and recognition from the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the international advertising business organisation that developed industry standards, conducted research and provided legal support for the online advertising industry, Schimmel said. She added that while the electronic communications act bound the broadcasters, the print media worked with the ASA.
“Our strongest tool was the broadcaster - the other relationships were not as formalised. We only needed to go to the media with a complaint about unethical advertisers.”
It’s still early days for the ARB: having “rebranded”, it has to inform the public about its existence. And while the ASA averaged about 100 complaints a week, complaints to the ARB are only starting to trickle in. Schimmel said its biggest challenge was around consumer awareness.
On November 16, the ARB handed down its first ruling.
It wasn’t the sexiest issue, but it attracted much attention on social media because it was the ARB’s first case - and it highlighted the importance of self-regulation.
A consumer, Dave Bennett, had complained about Shoprite Checkers labelling Rama “Original” spread as “margarine” in a catalogue of special deals.
Bennett argued that the product was not margarine as legally defined, because it contained more than 16% water, so it should be described as spread. Checkers investigated the complaint and found the issue applied only to incorrect labels in its KwaZulu-Natal catalogues.
The KZN advertising team was informed about the matter and have given the assurance that they would not use the word “margarine” when describing Rama, which the ARB accepted.
Schimmel said it was a good start: “We got an undertaking from the advertiser and it’s indicative of compliance by marketers.
“In this ruling, it was lovely to see how ethical marketers are happy to make the transition and they see the importance of self-regulation.
“Had we looked at the margarine story, we would have asked ‘are you misleading consumers’ and made a decision on that. We didn’t need to apply the regulations per se - we looked at the code, but the retailer came to the party.”