On Wednesday, we blogged about the new ASA regulations and some of the questions that it raised in relation to communications in the online space.

It caused a bit of a stir.

Whilst marketing, PR and social media professionals all seem to concur that ensuring vulnerable people can trust marketing communications in the online space is important and that guidelines are helpful for professionals operating in this area, there are some grey areas requiring resolution and some questions that need to be addressed.

Like whether hosting a conversation through a live social media feed on an advertisers’ website is promotion. Or what the implications are for re-Tweets.

As we continue exploring the implications of this measure, we were pleased to see that Copy Advice is beginning to address some of these questions and wanted to mention the piece as it nearly slipped under our radar.

You can read the full article for yourself here and, whilst it’s reassuring that some of the questions we touched on are being addressed, the article also highlights the complexity of the debate. For example, whilst Copy Advice offers reassurance that each breach will be examined on a case-by-case basis , we are already starting to get a sense of just how many subtleties will come into play – think context, tone, solicitation – and how hard interpreting the regulations may become.

Similarly, the attempts to define ‘marketing communications’ and a reminder of the exemptions are helpful, but fail to clarify some of the haziness around the increasingly blurry definition of editorial content.

With such rich and varied content being created by both users and companies, gaining clarity is of paramount importance – both in relation to protecting consumers and also keeping social media exciting and fresh.

The extension of the ASA’s CAP code to cover digital marketing communications – both on brand’s own websites, but also through social media, has been driven by a need to close the gap related to companies’ claims online, in particular to regulate marketing to children.

There is no doubt that regulation is essential to protect the vulnerable. And to give brands clear guidance on accepted professional standards of communication. Everybody benefits.

At face value, the digital extension is clear: online communications that are generated or commissioned by a brand fall under the CAP code’s remit. All you need to do to ascertain liability is ‘follow the money.’

But is it really that clear cut?

Marketing communications falls under the Code; press releases on a company website are exempt. But ‘editorial’ and ‘marketing communications material’ can be difficult to distinguish. PR covers more than just press releases. Many different forms of content may be used to grab the attention of influencers.

And many different flavours of influencers may be engaged. If those influencers are professional journalists they are deemed capable of making up their own mind about PR material. What about bloggers? At which point do they move from interested member of the public who needs protecting by the Code, to media professional who can apply a different set of criteria to evaluating marketing material?

So what is marketing promotion?

Beyond online PR, the non-paid-for space online presents even more shades of grey. If a brand commissions user generated content (UGC) which is shared online, that communications piece falls under the CAP code digital remit. Unsolicited UGC is not covered. Promoting unsolicited UGC is covered. So what is considered a marketing promotion?

• Is a tweet highlighting UGC a brand admires to be considered under regulation?
• Is hosting a conversation through a live social media feed on an advertisers’ website, promotion?

There are many challenges here for social media marketing.

• Advertisers may have many different social media estates. These are not always managed at a senior level and engagement with those sites is not always defined. There is a potential that this extension will add to the fear of social media that already stops many companies from taking part.
• Those individuals already engaging in social media activities will need a level of communications expertise and an understanding of regulations that may be unfamiliar and outside of their experience.
• Hat tipping trends and influencer comment has become common amongst social savvy brands. This will now need some forethought to prevent false claims.

ASA will risk your brand reputation

Another concern is the risk to reputation represented by the planned ASA ‘outing’ of non compliant brands.

Even under the existing code, long after reparation is made, an adjudication can still show up high on a search engine results page. The new Code will bring a new ‘name and shame’ site into play. The impact of appearing on that site will affect business and increase punitive measure way beyond the fines.

The industry needs clarity

We have many questions that the Code as yet leaves unanswered:

• What is the difference between marketing communication and editorial on a website – and will the decision be made based on solely ASA assessment?
• Is an RSS or Twitter feed that pulls UGC onto a company website considered promotion and therefore covered by the code?
• When will the ‘name and shame’ site come into play? While the Code is still being defined advertisers could easily fall foul. If the point of contention is an ambiguous one, will there be negotiation room around the complaint or could a brand fall victim to a temporary ambiguity, while the judgement remains online for perpetuity?

Perhaps the biggest question that remains however, is this: given the ambiguity between editorial, PR and marketing, why was the CIPR not even consulted?

Image via Wikipedia

As I ponder England’s dispirited performance in the World Cup, or to be more honest, listen to my colleagues discuss it, I wonder about what makes us great. How can we be our best? Apparently, the Spanish had nothing to lose. They could play with no fear. A united team that played to its strengths and had the spirit to win.

I read an interesting article in the FT this week from Lucy Kellaway ‘It’s time to sack appraisals’. She argues that appraisals are a waste of time.

I agree. Mostly.

Lucy suggests that real management is preferable – absolutely right. If managers stopped to give real constructive feedback on the spot – people would have a clear idea of what is expected.

However, often people don’t seize the moment. And later at appraisal time they hide behind jargon, complex templates and cut-and-paste objectives and imagine that is managing. They simply don’t have the appetite, tools or training to do it properly.

Well thought through appraisals are valuable. Even where real on the job management is happening. I’ve seen success stories where someone has been able to improve their performance and turn a corner. Or consolidate their experience to earn a promotion.

A clear roadmap of career development is often cited as a core driver for job satisfaction and the appraisal system allows for that. Put simply, people are motivated by making progress.

Engaged staff make for happy clients and a successful business.

But surely the flipside is equally important. Without appraisals the good can’t get better, but the bad can’t get fired. Ditching appraisals is the business management equivalent of issuing staff with a Cappello contract.

In a competitive world, we can’t afford to coast. Appraisals, used right, are effective tools for ensuring we perform. After all what business can succeed in an environment of enduring mediocrity?

As we all know, for some time now, media-savvy companies have been taking full advantage of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, for a combination of brand-building, direct sales, customer service and PR. This has left us all wondering what will be the next big ‘thing’.

Could it be the controversial Chatroulette? For those of you that have had your head in the sand for the past few months, this is a video dating/exhibitionism site, started at the end of last year, which randomly connects users from around the world, enabling them to communicate using webcam, text and images. On closer inspection, users share webcam footage with each other and much of it is of a rather dubious nature – and that’s putting it mildly!

Despite what its critics say, the site is growing massively by the day and according to comScore, Chatroulette drew 960,000 U.S. visitors in February, up from 109,000 in January.

So, how can brands benefit from such a strange, sometimes obscene, phenomenon?

With the general user-base being made up of people who want to expose themselves, people looking for nudity, and curious/new users, there aren’t a lot of brands that would knowingly market themselves to digital exhibitionists, but its growing attention does present an opportunity for brands. In light of this, surely brands should ask themselves a question before trying out any new medium — especially one with a shady reputation. What do they hope to get out of it?

One brand has bitten the marketing bullet and dipped its toes in the murky waters of Chatroulette. French Connection is currently using the site to run a competition where men are being asked to set up a real date with a girl on the site. The bloke not only gets a date but also £250 worth of French Connection vouchers. The competition is part of French Connection’s The Man, The Woman campaign launched in February, which aims to draw more attention to its men’s range of clothing.

Personally, I’m not entirely convinced. Is this merely a case of social media bandwagon hopping? Brands who want to be perceived as edgy simply jumping on to the hot new thing in social media? And do we really want to see the naked truth?

Hopefully you follow a few of the members of the immediate future team who have their own personal Twitter feeds, but for the first time we’ve set up an official company presence:

http://twitter.com/iftweeter

If you’re on Twitter, wander over and check it out.

What can you expect from the feed? News and views on the latest in the worlds of technology, social media communications. Plenty of opinion. Possibly some tweets about the cakes we occasionally get delivered.

Hmmm. Cake.