Unfortunately Mervyn King's clarification of the ASA's viewpoint regarding isolated complaints, as reported in BIZ - COMMUNITY, utterly fails to address the real issue. Advertisers are not disputing the right of an individual to complain about an ad. What concerns me however, is that within the current ASA arbitration process, a single complaint (no matter how ridiculous or absurd) necessitates a time-consuming and often costly defence. And I'm not even going to go into some of the ASA's controversial (if not knee-jerk) rulings.
The prevailing attitude from the ASA seems to be, "Someone pointed a finger so you're guilty until proven innocent". And yet, if it comes down to protecting consumers, I personally have no argument with that. What I do have a problem with, is when the ASA's role of protecting consumers from unscrupulous advertising becomes confused with the moral salvation of society in general. This and the increasing burden of the ASA (and agencies) having to attend to the whimsical complaints from self-proclaimed public-watchdog zealots. Fuelled by their past success, these self-appointed guardians of morality and sterilised advertising are increasingly using the ASA as a convenient (and free) ideal-furthering platform. Furiously scrutinising each and every advertisement, these solo plaintiffs search for any opportunity to defend the fabric of society from the immoral, degrading, politically-incorrect, subliminal, blasphemous, evil speak that they deem advertising to be.
Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at the latest 20 ASA rulings...
Would you believe that 20% of the complaints were lodged by a single individual! Mr I. McLean - clearly a self-appointed advertising watchdog. And some of the other names on the list won't be unfamiliar to advertisers who have previously found themselves on the ASA's carpet. Take Mr R.Benson for instance. It's certainly not the first complaint he's ever submitted...
And unfortunately we advertisers are having to pay the price. Calculate the cost to advertisers every time Messer's McLean, Benson and others submit their solo complaints to the ASA. Legal fees, correspondence, time lost, flights to the ASA in Jo'burg. And whatever the outcome, win or lose, advertisers are left to foot the bill.
So what should the ASA be doing to sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of legitimate complaints?
Well here are some ideas for starters:
Understand that the role of the ASA is not to "sanitise" all ads, but rather to protect consumers from unscrupulous advertising. Consider implementing a more even-handed complaints process that allows the ASA the right to award costs - as in a court of law. Alternatively demand a deposit from plaintiffs. (Structured rates for individuals vs. corporate if need be). Fully refundable in the event of a complaint being upheld - but forfeited to the Advertising Benevolent Fund if dismissed.
Lastly, Mr King may also wish to reconsider his anti-opinion poll stance? After all, it is, in a sense, the very basis of our democracy. And what better way to evaluate an advertisement than to ask its intended audience? Or perhaps the ASA should present the industry with an example of a perfect advertisement aimed at "the reasonable person" as per their definition. They at least concede that their "reasonable person" is fictional. I believe such an ad would be no less so.
[Letter by Dave Lehr, Director, CLM Advertising]
