Suddenly, advertising regulation is a hot topic, with Ofcom recently announcing that it may allow product placement within TV programmes, and a growing debate about the rights and wrongs of advertising to children. For those working in interactive advertising, it's an even more pressing issue...

By Michael Nutley

[Register and post your own comments on this article below...]

In a recent issue of New Media Age (NMA), Claire Tavernier, senior VP of interactive at content producer Fremantle, explained that a lot of advertiser interest in mobile is due to it being an unregulated medium. "A lot of things you can't do on TV, in terms of product placement and so on, you can do on these new platforms," she said. In the same issue, Toby Hack, head of TV at media agency OMDtvi expressed similar concerns about interactive TV advertising. "The lack of regulation surrounding iTV spots does allow advertisers to use content they wouldn't otherwise get away with," he told NMA.

There are two parts to this; regulation by the authorities and self-regulation. Back in 2003, the Communications Act gave Ofcom's responsibility for investigating and adjudicating complains about advertising to the Advertising Standards Authority. But there is confusion about just how far the ASA's remit extends. It certainly believes mobile falls within its scope, but what about branded content that's requested by the consumer, sent either to mobiles or to PVRs?

Self regulation - how far can brands go?

This is where self-regulation comes in. The regulatory bodies have already accepted the principle of self-regulation by certain sectors, notably the mobile industry's guidelines on adult content. But probably more powerful in restraining advertisers are their own concerns about the damage overstepping the mark online might do to their brand. You only have to think about the row surrounding the spoof VW "Suicide bomber" ad to realise the implications of going too far.

But how far is too far? Brands are also competing to cut through in an ever-more congested media landscape, so there will always be a temptation to push not just the rules, but the boundaries of what's acceptable. And this doesn't just apply to self-consciously edgy brands such as Pot Noodle. One of the areas where the problem is likely to be particularly acute is in advertising to children.

At the end of May, digital agency Panlogic produced research showing the growing importance of children to the way families make purchasing decisions, driven by their increasing use of the Internet. According to the report 'Families At Home: The Digital Future' 88% of primary school children use the Internet at home, a figure which rises to 95% among 11 to 18 year-olds.

Parents & children - a shared online experience

This puts increasing pressure on brands operating in that area, an area that is already fiercely competitive in terms of cut through, and one which is already highly controversial.

One conclusion that Panlogic CEO William Makower draws from his agency's research is that brands need to create experiences aimed at both children and parents "to build a shared experience online". This is entirely sensible; indeed it draws on the well-established strand of thinking in educational broadcasting that brought us Sesame Street. The programme's creators wanted to encourage parents to watch with their children, hence the inclusion of jokes that went far over the heads of its pre-school audience.

But the other advantage of brands adopting this approach is that by laying themselves open to increased scrutiny by parents, they reduce the risk of regulation being imposed on the industry from above.

It's almost certain that some of the confusion about regulation of advertising will be cleared up at some point in the future. The challenge for an industry that has benefited from light-touch regulation up to now is to make sure it doesn't bring much more stringent measures down on itself.

Michael Nutley is editor of New Media Age

Register and post your own comments on this article below...]